자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff driven a B motorcycle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.148% around 23:30 on August 7, 2013.
B. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1, Class 1, and Class 2 ordinary driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.
【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is driving a private taxi, so it is necessary to obtain a driver's license for his/her livelihood, obtain another occupation in his/her personal health condition, hear the words that his/her husband and wife divorced, resulting in drinking to the breath of a breath, and the circumstances leading to drinking without being able to commit a fraud by his/her husband and wife, and the circumstances leading to the occurrence of a traffic accident, while personal damage did not occur, the defendant's disposition of this case constitutes a case where he/she deviates from or abused discretionary authority.
B. 1) In light of the fact that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking is an administrative agency's discretionary act, today's mass means of transportation, and accordingly, the increase in traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result thereof are frequently involved, etc., the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is very large (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). Therefore, when the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, in light of the above legal principles. 2)