자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. At around 08:10 on May 29, 2020, the Plaintiff was driving D-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W
B. On June 16, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of July 13, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 18, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause damage to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving of the instant case; (b) the Plaintiff was a short distance driving; (c) the Plaintiff is an agent, and thus, the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license for the purpose of maintaining his/her livelihood; and (d) the Plaintiff’s family members are financially difficult to support; and (c) the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is considerably excessive compared to the public interest protected by the instant disposition; (d)
B. The revocation of a driver's license when a person who obtained the first driver's license drives a drunk driving is the discretionary act of an administrative agency. However, in light of the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving and the suspicion of its result, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be more serious. The revocation of a driver's license is the general preventive aspect that prevents the revocation rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act.