자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 27, 2014, at around 3:37, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.130%. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for Class I ordinary and Class II motor vehicles (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act. On January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the dismissal ruling was rendered on January 6, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff did not conflict between the parties, or that it was recognized by the evidence No. 7, No. 1, and No. 10.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s management of the company could not have a choice of drinking for customers, the distance of actual driving of the Plaintiff is limited to 500 meters, the depth of drinking is against the Plaintiff’s driving, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain his/her livelihood, the instant disposition is excessively harsh and unlawful.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the statements in evidence Nos. 2 through 9 as seen earlier, namely, ① the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the harm and injury caused by a motor vehicle in the modern society where the public and universal means of transportation are used should be strictly regulated, and the necessity for public interest to prevent this should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of the driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party subject to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). Therefore, the general preventive aspect for establishing traffic order and social safety should be more considered than the disadvantage of the Plaintiff, rather than the disadvantage of the Plaintiff due to the instant disposition, and ② the Plaintiff has already been taken into account on August 19, 2010.