1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around 00:10 on May 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class I large, Class I ordinary, and Class II small driving vehicles (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on July 2, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.132% on the front of a C-public parking lot located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had a substitute driver after drinking and had a driver moveed only to the exit of the above public parking lot, but followed by the following vehicles. The plaintiff was a drinking driver of the above public parking lot. The plaintiff was in office at the E post office, and the plaintiff was in office at the E post office, and the plaintiff must support his wife and children, and the loan is in an economically difficult position. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is too harsh to the plaintiff, and thus, it is unlawful.
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).