beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 17, 2017, around 23:53, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol, driven B LA car from the 307 LA car distance located at 307, Annyang-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-gu, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) as of June 6, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 3, 4, and Eul 4 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) completed a briefing session, including the company fee and alcohol on the day, but did not go through a proxy driving; and (b) controlled a drunk driving; (c) the Plaintiff did not incur human and physical damage due to a drunk driving at the time; (d) the Plaintiff is in charge of purchasing duties while working as a lighting company’s production position; and (e) the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license; and (e) the Plaintiff must support his parents living together and bears excessive liabilities, the instant disposition is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) 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 suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and in the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, the ordinary preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party to be avoided, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).