Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On June 20, 2020: (1) around 00:40 on June 20, 2020, the Plaintiff driven C Pozon load while under the influence of alcohol 0.096% in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

(2) On July 3, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 2 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 17, 2020, but was dismissed on August 18, 2020.

[Grounds] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 4, 14, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and Eul's overall purport of the pleading as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the convenience store to purchase it as the plaintiff requires a sudden drinking at the time, and there is no power to drive drinking, the plaintiff does not have any traffic accident due to drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff's representative who develops medical supplies, etc., the plaintiff's vehicle driving is necessary for moving its head office, local business trips, and cell transport, etc., and the driving is an important means to maintain the family's livelihood, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused

Judgment

Today, in light of the fact that the rapid increase of automobiles and the number of driver's licenses are issued in large quantities, and the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are frequently frequent and there are many cases where the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate driving of a motor vehicle, it is more necessary to realize public interest rather than to suffer disadvantages from driving drivers who do not cause traffic accidents due to the revocation of the license for the driving of a motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 1996).