The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On September 17, 2020, the Plaintiff driven a C golf vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.108% on the front side of Sungwon-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu (hereinafter “instant drinking”). On October 13, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary use) on the ground of the instant drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On October 22, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on October 22, 2020, but was dismissed on November 17, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, and the plaintiff's argument as to the validity of the disposition of this case is limited to 5 km, the plaintiff has no driving power, the plaintiff is in charge of managing its subsidiaries as its members, and the plaintiff's driver's license is essential to maintain the family's livelihood, and the economic difficulties have occurred due to the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretionary power.

Judgment

Where a person who has obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident intentionally or by negligence while driving a motor vehicle, the revocation of the driver's license is a discretionary act of an administrative agency.

In light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large volume accordingly, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the cruelness of the result, etc., the necessity of public interest should be emphasized, and when the driver's license is revoked, the general preventive aspect should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party that will be incurred due to the cancellation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act.