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 28, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driving license (B) on May 16, 201, and around 22:13 on May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at 0.12% of alcohol level, and was under the influence of alcohol at around 300 meters for the 167-day So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called No. 1, and was under the influence of alcohol
B. Accordingly, on June 10, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on June 23, 2016, but was dismissed on September 2, 2016.
[Grounds for recognition] The entry of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the first 18-year driving experience, and the Plaintiff is working on the construction site, while the Plaintiff is working on the construction site, it is essential to drive the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s financial obligations and the Plaintiff’s family members’ living is difficult when the driver’s license is revoked. In light of the following, the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff is excessively harsh and excessively harsh and its discretionary power is exceeded and abused.
B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing due to the rapid increase of motor vehicles today, the number of driver's licenses of motor vehicles is issued in large quantities, and traffic conditions are congested on the day, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Therefore, in revocation of driver's licenses on the grounds of drinking driving on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike revocation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, and it should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.
Supreme Court Decision 2007No. 27.12