자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 8, 2014, at around 10:30, the Plaintiff driven CA car volume while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.254% on the front road of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si.
B. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the driver’s license stated in the purport of the claim as of August 17, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul 1 through 8
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a disabled person of grade 6 with a delay disability; the Plaintiff was discovered while driving the vehicle to shoulder alcohol; and the Plaintiff supports dump truck’s wife, mother, and two daughters who are students under difficult economic circumstances, the instant disposition is excessively harsh and thus is unlawful.
B. In light of the fact that today’s revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of driving under the influence of alcohol is an administrative agency’s discretionary act, and accordingly, a large number of automobiles are the mass means of transportation, the trend of the increase of traffic accidents caused by driving under the influence of alcohol, and the result therefrom, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by driving under the influence of alcohol is very great (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 197). Therefore, in revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of driving under the influence of alcohol, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be incurred, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act of driving under the influence of alcohol.
In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content exceeds 0.1%, which is the criteria for revoking the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff is a drunk driving around 2004.