beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 12, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on June 5, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.107% on the roads prior to the point of the Articles of Incorporation of the Enterprise Bank in Busan-gun, the Seoul-gun Articles of Incorporation.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On June 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is responsible for managing the electronic computer systems of government offices, etc. while working in C with a software technical qualification certificate acquired. In light of the fact that it is essential to drive automobiles due to the nature of the work to be dispatched to new walls when a computer trouble occurred, and that the Plaintiff supports wife, high school students, and their parents, and that the instant disposition is in a position to leave the workplace, the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing discretionary power.
B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk 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 a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).