beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 30, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.185% (the result of blood collection) around April 30, 2017, driven a DNA car free car driving on the roads front of the C hotel located in Namdong-gu Incheon, Incheon, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class II ordinary car driving license (license number: E) as of June 25, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 2, Eul 4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff had a customer staff who was enrolled in the local area and a drinking place, and had an agent, but had an in-depth driver, and was found to have a drinking-free driver.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of a driver’s license has no record of driving or traffic accident except for the minor two violations of laws and regulations for about 19 years, the Plaintiff did not inflict human and physical damage on others due to drinking driving, is engaged in the sales and rental business of small-sized construction machinery, and the driver’s license is essential to deliver the site, and must support one spouse and one child, the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing its discretion.
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking 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 drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.