beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large and Class 1 special (bitr) as of May 23, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a ecoo motor vehicle as of May 11, 2016 under the influence of alcohol level of 0.107% on the roads in front of the middle Station located in the Seocho-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 9, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 10, Evidence No. 10, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s alleged driving distance is about 700 meters, and the Plaintiff’s alcohol level is only more than 0.1%, which is the criteria for revoking the driver’s license. The Plaintiff’s license is essential to maintain his livelihood by driving dump trucks, and the Plaintiff’s failure to drive dump trucks on the ground of a driver’s license is too harsh. In light of the above, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was an abuse of discretion.
B. In today’s determination today, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the result thereof is harsh, it is very important to protect the public interest from traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, general preventive measures should be more emphasized that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party that would be incurred due to the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff’s degree of drinking alcohol should be emphasized as stated in Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.