자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On July 6, 2017, around 22:34, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B SP car owned by the Plaintiff on the front of the B SP car owned by the Plaintiff on the road in front of the B SP car owned by the Plaintiff while he/she was under the influence of alcohol at a 0.136% (the result of a smoking measurement) while he/she was under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) as of August 19, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had a friendship and a drinking place at his house, and was driving a motor vehicle directly without a substitute engineer, and the driving of the motor vehicle was controlled.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of a driver’s license had no traffic accident or alcohol driving record except for only one violation of laws and regulations for about 25 years, and that there was no personal injury to others due to drinking driving, and that the Plaintiff is in charge of the current affairs of management of business operations during the card inquiry, which is essential to drive for customers’ business trip, and that the Plaintiff’s spouse and two children should support, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing 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 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 drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.