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 October 31, 2017, around 23:28, the Plaintiff is driving B automobiles on the front side of two parts of the Busan Jung-gu Central Do, Busan.
The plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.170% as a result of pulmonary measurement, and it was measured at 0.16% as a result of the plaintiff's request.
B. Accordingly, on November 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.16% with blood alcohol content.”
[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1-7, Eul evidence 4-1-2, Eul evidence 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that drinking driving of this case does not interfere with traffic or did not cause traffic accidents; (b) the Plaintiff made efforts to avoid the normal drinking driving; (c) the Plaintiff made a confession of the fact that drinking alcohol was driven in a net order; (d) the Plaintiff is engaged in the fireworks delivery service business; and (e) the Plaintiff is essential to drive cars; and (e) the Plaintiff was engaged in the usual smoke service activities, etc., the instant disposition was abused its discretion.
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of the situation where a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly the issuance of a driver's license, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the severity of the result, etc., the need for public interest should be more emphasized. In the revocation of a driver's license, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, it should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.