2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The revocation of the driver's license granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

It is identical to the text of paragraphs 1 and 2.

A. On October 26, 2012, at around 04:25, the Plaintiff, while driving a passenger car (vehicle number omitted) on a passenger car located in the Kimhae-si, was shocked by the Drick Day, etc. while driving the car from the Changwon tunnel to the discharge of booming away from the Changwon tunnel, and thereby, the Plaintiff and three winners were seriously injured (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. After the instant accident, the Plaintiff was sent to the Emergency Center of ○○ Hospital without consciousness, and the police officer in charge collected the Plaintiff’s blood with the Nonparty’s mother’s consent, on October 26, 2012, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s pulmonary measurement by a drinking measuring instrument cannot be conducted on or around October 26, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant blood collection”). However, the police officer in charge did not obtain the Plaintiff’s consent in relation to the instant blood collection or obtain a warrant ex post facto from the court.

C. As a result of the appraisal of the Plaintiff’s blood collected from the instant blood collection by the National Scientific Investigation Institute, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was analyzed as 0.125%.

D. On March 6, 2013, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driving license in accordance with Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.125% and caused the instant accident by drinking alcohol.

E. On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 12, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 16, non-party witness of the first instance trial, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Not only did the Plaintiff’s consent was not obtained, but also violated the principle of due process by failing to obtain a warrant from the court. Therefore, since the result of the Plaintiff’s assessment of blood alcohol concentration with respect to the Plaintiff’s blood recovered from the instant blood collection was illegally collected evidence, the instant disposition based thereon is unlawful.

B. Since the Plaintiff acquired the driver’s license on January 21, 2008, there was no history of traffic accident in addition to the instant accident, and it is difficult to maintain a normal workplace due to the aftermath of the instant accident. If the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is revoked due to the instant disposition, the Health Insurance Corporation is expected to seek reimbursement of approximately KRW 70,000,000, such as the insurance money already paid to the Plaintiff. Considering the public interest pursued by the instant disposition in full view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful by deviating from and abusing the discretion.

3. Determination

A. The part concerning the plaintiff's claim 2. A

There is no provision on the exclusion of admissibility of illegally collected evidence in the Administrative Litigation Act, and the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is not applicable mutatis mutandis, and there is no provision on the exclusion of admissibility thereof in the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and by guaranteeing the defendant's right to assistance of counsel, it cannot be equally treated as civil litigation and administrative litigation premised on the cooperation between the parties equal to that of the criminal procedure with the aim of guaranteeing the defendant's right to fair trial through substantial weapons, etc

In relation to the collection of blood in this case, the above facts are acknowledged. However, in light of the fact that the police officer in charge obtained consent to the collection of blood from the Plaintiff’s mother while the Plaintiff lost consciousness due to the traffic accident in this case, and that the nurse collected the Plaintiff’s blood using non- alcohol disinfection chemicals and disposable injection equipment, it cannot be deemed that the means and methods of the collection of blood in this case are considerably anti-social or serious infringement on the Plaintiff’s personality right, the admissibility of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol exposure report (Evidence B) containing the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration is recognized.

Therefore, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level 0.125%, so the instant disposition is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The part concerning the plaintiff 2. Na

Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where a large-scale driver's license is issued, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest should be emphasized, and when the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the cancellation of ordinary beneficial administrative act, it should be emphasized that the ordinary preventive aspect should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, ① the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration (0.125%) exceeds the basic value for the revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (0.1%). ② The Plaintiff, while driving under the influence of alcohol as above, caused the instant accident to three passengers and passengers while driving under the influence of alcohol, ③ the general preventive aspect for the establishment of traffic order and social safety should be more considered than the Plaintiff’s individual disadvantage, rather than the legality judgment of the instant disposition, even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that the public interest pursued from the instant disposition is less light than the disadvantage the Plaintiff may suffer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jin Sung-chul (Presiding Judge)