자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license (C) as of September 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “A vehicle was driven at the core level of blood alcohol concentration of 0.102% on the street in front of the listed intersection of the Listing Round on August 3, 2014,” against the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by a phone call that the Plaintiff was brupted after being administered for two years prior to the time when he/she was in the influence of alcohol on August 2, 2014.
The plaintiff has become a substitute driver, but has not been 40 minutes but been forced to drive by telephone.
The plaintiff started the field and immediately arrived by the substitute driver, and the proxy driver, who was in the remote distance from the length of each other, was reported to 112 to the plaintiff, without self-regulation.
In full view of the circumstances leading up to drinking driving, the necessity of driving for family commuting treatment, the necessity of driver's license for family living as a business employee, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and is in violation of the law of deviating from and abusing the discretion.
B. In light of the fact that a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and the issuance of a large amount of driver's license accordingly, and the result of a traffic accident caused by a drunk driving is frequently involved, the necessity of public interest to prevent a traffic accident caused by a drunk driving is very important. Therefore, in the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of a drunk driving, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation should be emphasized.
Supreme Court Decision 2007.12.