beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 11, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class large and first-class ordinary vehicles (license number: C) as of April 30, 2016, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the Blux vehicle on the front of the Dong resident center located in the Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, which is located in the Dong-dong, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, under the influence of alcohol content 0.10%.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of evidence of Nos. 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion may take into account the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s drinking operation of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was very insignificant at the time of regulation, the driving distance was merely based on the basis, the Plaintiff’s current cargo transport business, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary to engage in the current cargo transport business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s livelihood is significantly impeded if the license is revoked, the Plaintiff’s wife and children should be supported, the financial obligation is considerable, and the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case was given an official commendation with a large number of blood donations, it is unlawful that the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case exceeded
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, rather than the disadvantage of the party (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do258, Dec. 2