The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On August 31, 2020, at around 20:50, the Plaintiff driven a C G80 car volume with a alcohol level of 0.124% on the front of Chuncheon-si B (hereinafter “instant drinking”). On September 29, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, and class 2) on the ground of the instant drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On October 14, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on October 14, 2020, but was dismissed on November 6, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire argument as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's traffic accident did not occur due to the plaintiff's drinking driving of this case. The driving distance of drinking of this case was limited to 5 km, the plaintiff did not have a driving power, the plaintiff's operation of the temple with no driving power, and the plaintiff's movement with a long distance. Thus, a driver's license is necessary, driving is an important means to maintain his family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case causes difficulties in living due to the disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it is beyond and abused the scope of discretionary power.

Judgment

Today, in light of the fact that the rapid increase of automobiles and the number of driver's licenses are issued in large quantities, and the need to strictly observe the traffic laws and regulations is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are frequently frequent and there are many cases where the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate the driving of a motor vehicle, it is more necessary to realize the public interest rather than to suffer disadvantages caused by the driver who did not cause the traffic accident due to the cancellation of the driver's license (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 1996).