자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On March 4, 2020, at around 23:20, the Plaintiff driven a C SP car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.226% on the front of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu.
(2) On March 20, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) 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 April 29, 2020, but was dismissed on June 2, 2020.
[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the distance of drinking driving of this case alleged by the plaintiff is only 1 km, the plaintiff's driver's license is in charge of field construction work in a construction company, and driving is essential means to maintain the family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it is an abuse of discretion.
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).