The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

Around July 8, 2020: (a) around 00:56, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car volume under the influence of alcohol level of 0.101% at the New Airport Highway, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant drinking”). On July 28, 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 August 24, 2020, but was dismissed on October 13, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff's driver's license is necessarily necessary, and the disposition of this case causes difficulties in livelihood, etc., the disposition of this case is unlawful since 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, in light of 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 to be incurred due to the cancellation should be emphasized (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5988 delivered on July 26, 1996). The whole purport of the arguments can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts.