beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 23, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the DK5 car volume on the front of the Cart located in eromosome B while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.190% (the result of a smoking measurement) of blood alcohol concentration on June 23, 2017, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (license number: E) on July 19, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 2, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had the company's club fee and drinking place, but did not go through a proxy driver even after he did not go to the court, and the driver was under the influence of drinking, even though he did not go to the court.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not have inflicted personal injury on others due to drinking driving, that it is currently running a water distribution business, that it is impossible to perform his/her duties without a driver's license, and that it is necessary to support his/her spouse and two children, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing the discretion.
B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a license for driving a motor vehicle on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency’s discretionary act, in light of the situation where the motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and when the revocation of a license for driving a motor vehicle on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, the ordinary preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).
. The above.