beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (as of September 21, 2016, Class 1, Class 1, Class 2, Class 2, Class 2, and Class 2, Class 2) as of October 21, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a DNA 0.142% alcohol level on the front of the C main shop located in Jinju-si B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 15, 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 instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff only driven a short distance of about 20 meters to park the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle in a safe place; (b) the Plaintiff’s driving license is essential in order for the Plaintiff to continue to operate his/her test business and maintain his/her livelihood; and (c) there was no past history of drinking driving.
B. In today’s determination, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are 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 than the disadvantage of the party to be incurred due to the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff’s degree of revocation of a driver’s license falls under the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the instant disposition based on such criteria is deemed significantly unreasonable.