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 November 3, 2015, at around 22:01, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle of hurburged e on the front of the D gas station located in Isung C while under the influence of alcohol 0.132% (blood collection measurement result).
B. On November 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (license number: B) on December 27, 2015 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was found to have been driving on a model without a traffic accident or the influence of alcohol driving once after obtaining the Plaintiff’s driver’s license. Considering the various circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s demand for blood collection measurement and the fact that drinking water level exceeded the revocation standard, and that the Plaintiff’s workplace needs to be located in a place where it is difficult for the Plaintiff to drive a vehicle due to public transportation, the instant disposition constitutes unlawful as it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff excessively deviates from or abused the Plaintiff’s discretionary power.
B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving is an administrative agency’s discretionary act, in light of today’s mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver’s license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party to be avoided, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da5488, May 24, 2012).