beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 3, 2017, at around 03:24, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol 0.191% ( blood collection and the application of the Badmark) of blood alcohol content, was driving a B car in the 2nd Dong-dong Highway from the starting point of entry into the 2nd Dong-dong Highway, the starting point of entry into the 2nd Dong-dong Highway, the lower court, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class driver’s license (license number: C) as of July 13, 2017 on August 7, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 2, Eul 4 through 9, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on the same day by attending the workshop at the Seoul Food Nutrition CEO course, drinking alcohol, and stopping a vehicle on an expressway after drinking alcohol.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not cause personal injury to others due to drunk driving, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for business operations, etc., and the Plaintiff’s spouse and three children should be repaid with the liability of several hundred million won while supporting the Defendant, the instant disposition is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking 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 drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the parties that would be suffered from the revocation, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.