자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On March 15, 2020, at around 22:15, the Plaintiff driven a C-wheeled Vehicle while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.120% of alcohol level on the front side of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
(2) On April 22, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 common and class 2 motor vehicles) on the ground of the instant drunk driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 14, 2020, but was dismissed on June 23, 2020.
[Grounds] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the purport of the entire pleadings and records or images of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 12, is essential to drive a two-wheeled vehicle for their livelihood due to disability. Thus, in light of the fact that the driver’s license is essential, and that driving is an important means to maintain his family’s livelihood, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretionary authority.
Judgment
If a person who obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident intentionally or by negligence while driving a motor vehicle, even though the revocation of the driver's license is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large volume, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of the result, the need for public interest to prevent the traffic accident caused by drinking driving should be emphasized more, and in the revocation of the driver's license, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative action.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5988 delivered on July 26, 1996). The aforementioned evidence is acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of all the arguments.