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 January 16, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 1, class 2, class ordinary, class 2, class 2, class 2, class 3: C) as of February 9, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B-use motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.127% in front of the digging bridge in the north-gu, Busan Metropolitan City on December 19, 2014.
B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on March 10, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was under contact with his father who is administering on the day of the instant case, and was driven by an urgent mind, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to support his family by driving large cargo vehicles and supporting their income. If the driver’s license is revoked, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to maintain his family’s livelihood, and the Plaintiff’s depth is against the Plaintiff, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, it is unlawful.
B. In light of the situation where a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly, the issuance of a motor vehicle driver's license, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drunk driving, and the cruelness of the result, etc., the necessity of public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving should be more emphasized. In the revocation of a driver's license, unlike the revocation 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 on May 24, 2012