beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On January 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for driving of a Class I large-scale ordinary dog (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on February 1, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.123% in front of C in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, on the grounds that he/she driven a D car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.123%.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had obtained the driver's license on May 30, 2009, followed the traffic order and faithfully drive without the influence of drunk driving, and the plaintiff served as a bus engineer. The plaintiff is unable to obtain the bus driver's license for five years since the disposition of this case. The plaintiff supports his wife and children, and the plaintiff's driver's license is essential because the plaintiff's income leads to his livelihood, and the plaintiff lives with the mind of serving the society through blood donation, etc. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is too harsh to the plaintiff, and thus, it constitutes an abuse of discretionary power.
B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk 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 a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).