(a) Criteria for discretionary acts by administrative agencies with regard to the cancellation of driver's license;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the disposition revoking the driver's license on the taxi driver who caused a physical traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.18% is a deviation from discretion;

A. In a case where a person who obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident by intention or negligence while driving a motor vehicle, even though the revocation of the driver's license is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of the situation where the driver's license is issued in large volume, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the cruelness of the result, the need for public interest to prevent the traffic accident caused by drinking driving should be emphasized more, and when the driver's license is revoked, the general preventive aspect should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act. In particular, if the driver is a person who is operating a motor vehicle as a business, it is more so more so.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the disposition revoking the driver's license on the taxi driver who caused physical traffic accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.18% is a deviation from discretion.

Articles 41(1) and 78 subparag. 8 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 5011 of Dec. 31, 1994); Article 53(1) [Attachment Table 16] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance No. 626 of Sep. 10, 194); Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

Plaintiff

Daegu District Police Agency

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu3118 delivered on May 12, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while acquiring a Class 1 driver's license on September 21, 1978 and working as a business taxi driver from around 1982 to 192, the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol (0.18% of blood alcohol concentration) around 00:45 on June 2, 1994 and was under the influence of personal taxi transportation business, and the plaintiff was under the influence of 9:16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1497, Jul. 2, 1994; Presidential Decree No. 1964, Jun. 1, 1994; Presidential Decree No. 19657, Jul. 2, 1994; Presidential Decree No. 1964, Nov. 16, 200).

However, the judgment of the court below is the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff due to the cancellation disposition of the driver's license of this case, which is ultimately a threat to the livelihood of the plaintiff and his family. This is not a direct result from the cancellation disposition of the above driver's license, but an indirect relation with the cancellation disposition of the above driver's license. In addition, in the case where a person who obtained a driver's license has caused a traffic accident by intention or negligence while driving a drinking, even though the cancellation disposition is an act of discretion of an administrative agency, it is today's mass means of transportation and accordingly, the necessity for public interest to prevent the traffic accident due to drinking driving, the increase of traffic accident due to drinking driving, and the cruelness of the result, etc., the above disposition should be more emphasized, and in the case of the cancellation of the driver's license of this case, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the cancellation disposition of the above driver's license of this case, and the plaintiff's above disposition of driver's license of this case should be considered as a legitimate disposition of driver's license of this case.

Therefore, the court below held that the disposition of this case is an illegal disposition beyond discretionary power, and it cannot be said that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on abuse of discretionary power in the revocation disposition of driver's license, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)