2019Gudan1741 Revocation of revocation of driver's license

A

Daegu Commissioner of Local Police Agency

September 6, 2019

September 20, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition revoking the driver's license on May 14, 2019 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 14, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I and Class I ordinary) as of May 26, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.104% in Daegu-gu B on April 6, 2019 (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that the flow of traffic was obstructed or the occurrence of traffic accidents caused by the instant drinking driving, the distance of the Plaintiff’s driving was about 200 meters, the Plaintiff has made efforts to avoid drinking driving by using public transportation or proxy driving, etc., with no drinking-related power, the Plaintiff is operating a manufacturer with the trade name D, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessarily required for the supply of construction materials, and the instant disposition makes it very difficult for the Plaintiff to support and pay back his family due to the instant disposition, the instant disposition is an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretion due to excessive suspicion to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the degree of infringement on public interest by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances. In addition, if a disposition standard is stipulated in Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition should not be determined by itself, unless it conforms to the Constitution or laws, or unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that a punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above disposition standard is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation and the contents and purport

In addition, even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking, such as drinking driving, is an administrative agency's discretionary act, today's vehicle's license is issued in large volume as a mass means of mass traffic, so the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the reduction of traffic conditions is growing, and traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the result thereof is so harsh that it is necessary to strictly regulate drinking driving. In light of the fact that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the revocation of ordinary beneficial administrative act, it should be emphasized that the general preventive aspect should be prevented rather than the disadvantage suffered by the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007; 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012; 2012Du1051, etc.).

2) Comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence and the statements set forth in subparagraphs 2 through 7 (including paper numbers) of the above evidence and the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the public interest to be achieved through the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be less than that of the Plaintiff’s disadvantage, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to constitute an unlawful act of deviation from or abuse of discretion.

A) The instant disposition conforms to Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 123, Jun. 14, 2019) and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the said disposition does not conform with the Constitution or law.

B) It is difficult to deem that there was an inevitable circumstance that the Plaintiff could not avoid drinking, at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol.

C) In light of the degree of alcohol confirmed by the circumstantial report of a drinking driver and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level (0.104%), it appears that the Plaintiff was in a state that the Plaintiff could not drive at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol. Thus, solely on the fact that the distance of the Plaintiff’s driving was short, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant driving under the influence of alcohol did not pose any danger to road traffic.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul