Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On February 9, 2020, at around 04:06, the Plaintiff driven C’s vehicle volume while under the influence of alcohol of 0.147% in blood alcohol level on the front side of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

(2) On March 25, 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 March 25, 2020, but was dismissed on May 12, 2020.

[Grounds] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's driving of this case was conducted to move a vehicle parked on the side to a safe place where the plaintiff waiting for the substitute driving, there was no traffic accident due to the driving of this case, the plaintiff did not have the ability to drive under the influence of alcohol, the plaintiff's driving on behalf of the plaintiff is necessary for the driver's license, and the driver's license is an important means to maintain his family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties,

Judgment

Today, in light of the fact that there is a growing need to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic conditions due to the rapid increase of automobiles and the large number of driver's licenses, and the traffic accidents due to driving by driving by driving by driving by driving frequently and there are many cases where the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate driving by driving by driving, it is more necessary to realize public interest rather than disadvantages suffered by driving drivers who do not cause traffic accidents due to the revocation of license (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 1996).