자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 8, 2020, at around 20:40, the Plaintiff driven D rocketing car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.094% on the front of C in the Gumi-si B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On May 21, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of June 22, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 18, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is responsible for his family's livelihood, and for the insurance solicitor's business, the driver's license is essential, and the plaintiff must gather to the hospital the spouse who has difficulty in living due to the aftermath of her mother and her mother's disease, and the plaintiff bears a large amount of liability, etc. In light of the fact that the plaintiff bears a large amount of liability, the disposition in this case is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.
B. The revocation of a driver's license when a person who obtained the first driver's license drives a drunk driving is the discretionary act of an administrative agency. However, in light of the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving and the suspicion of its result, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be more serious. The revocation of a driver's license is more important than the cancellation of a driver's license, and it should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of a general beneficial administrative act.