The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On March 8, 2020, around 06:50 on March 8, 2020, the Plaintiff driven CK5 car volume while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.114% on the front of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(2) On March 18, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and 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 30, 2020, but was dismissed on May 26, 2020.

[Grounds] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the traffic accident did not occur due to the drinking driving of this case by the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the distance of drinking driving of this case is 2 km, the plaintiff is engaged in the vehicle maintenance business, etc., and the driver's license is essential to maintain the family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretionary power.

Judgment

Today, in light of the increasing number of automobiles and the increasing number of car driving licenses, and the need to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic conditions as the traffic situation is growing, and the frequent traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are frequently and the results thereof are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate the driving of a motor vehicle, it is more necessary to realize public interest rather than to suffer disadvantages from the driver who did not cause a traffic accident due to the revocation of the license for the driving of a motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 1996). The following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, are the following facts and circumstances.