beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 20, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of October 21, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B vehicles with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.133%, on the road located in 22-lane 117, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, as of September 7, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the driver's license is essential for his/her occupation at the nation's site because he/she works for the driver's duty, the driver's license is parked in front of the head of his/her house at the time of this case and drinks in his/her house. The plaintiff's assertion is driving a vehicle at a level of about 5 meters inevitably upon the request of the head of his/her house to move the vehicle from the head of his/her house, and the driver's duty of drinking driving prior to this case has no record of driving under the influence of drinking. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is deemed to be excessive to the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff compared to the needs of public interest, so it is unlawful as it exceeds the discretionary authority.
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 volume, so traffic conditions are complicated, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving is very serious. Therefore, the revocation of driver's licenses on the ground of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).