beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 11, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle of 0.188% of blood alcohol concentration (the result of a smoking measurement) at around 23:58, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first and second-class ordinary motor vehicle driver’s license (license number: D) as of July 25, 2017, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on June 22, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the motor vehicle of 0.18% of blood alcohol concentration (the result of smoking measurement) on the roads of Gangnam-gu Seoul.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff got home to put put put put to place place place orders or put to place orders, and left home to the place of a match. However, the Plaintiff was unable to put to put to place a substitute, and the Plaintiff was found to have been driving to police officers.
In addition to these driving circumstances, considering the fact that the driver's license is revoked, it is impossible to perform duties when the driver's license is revoked, and the driver's license is faced with excessive debts, the instant disposition is too harsh to the plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing the 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 emphasized more than the disadvantage of the parties that would be suffered from the revocation, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.