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 18:15, the Plaintiff driven C Cost Star Cargo Vehicles while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.088% on the front roads of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
(2) On May 8, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large and 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 May 12, 2020, but was dismissed on June 9, 2020.
[Grounds] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 9 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, and thus the plaintiff's vehicle driver's license is essential means to maintain the family's livelihood, driving is an important means to maintain the family's livelihood, and facing economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it is beyond and abused the scope 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). The aforementioned evidence is the whole of the arguments.