beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 2, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common account) as of April 6, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.108% on the front of Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, at around 04:55 on February 11, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.108%.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the Plaintiff is in charge of sales and sales delivery at the clothing-seller, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is in charge of the sales and sales delivery, and that the driver’s license is essential for his workplace, the family’s livelihood is very difficult when his driver’s license is revoked, and that he had no record of drinking driving and traffic accidents prior to the instant case, and that he is closely against the drinking driving of the instant case, the instant disposition constitutes cases where the Plaintiff excessively harshly abused
B. In today’s determination, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the large number of driver’s licenses is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving is very great. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s licenses on the ground of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party to be incurred due to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). It is difficult to deem that there was any inevitable circumstance that the Plaintiff could not avoid drinking driving at the time of regulating a drunk driving.