The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On November 20, 2019, at around 21:30 on November 20, 2019, the Plaintiff driven Crocketing car volume while under the influence of alcohol by 0.085% at the parking lot for the mid-to-face B stop in the mid-to-face B Rest located in the Ulsan-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

(2) On March 5, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 2 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 19, 2020, but was dismissed on May 19, 2020.

[Grounds] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, the driver's license is essential for the plaintiff to leave and leave the workplace which is not easy to transport as its member of the company, and the driver's license is an important means to maintain the family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it is beyond

Judgment

If a person who obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident intentionally or by negligence while driving a motor vehicle, even though the revocation of the driver's license is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large volume, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of the result, the need for public interest to prevent the traffic accident caused by drinking driving should be emphasized more, and in the revocation of the driver's license, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative action.

Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on July 1, 1996