The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On February 4, 2020, at around 01:15, the Plaintiff driven CK5 vehicle volume with alcohol level of 0.091% on the front side of B in the Namyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant drinking”). On February 29, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary ordinary) on the ground of the instant drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Trial Committee on March 13, 2020, but was dismissed on May 12, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul's overall purport of the argument, the purport of the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff has no record of driving under the influence of drinking to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's driver's license is essential for the plaintiff to leave, leave, and perform his duties as company members, the driving is an important means to maintain family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretion.

Judgment

Where a person who has obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident intentionally or by negligence while driving a motor vehicle, the revocation of the driver's license is a discretionary act of an administrative agency.

In light of today's mass means of transportation and accordingly, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the cruelness of the result, etc., the necessity of public interest should be emphasized, and when the driver's license is revoked, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party that will be incurred due to the cancellation should be emphasized (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5988 delivered on July 26, 1996).