beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Around 00:01 on May 5, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a mixed-type car B on the front side of Heungung-gu, Young-gu (the result of a smoking measurement) under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, thereby cancelling the Plaintiff’s Class II ordinary car driver’s license (license number: D) as of June 17, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 2, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion was made with two persons, who are on the same day, and the plaintiff completed the drinking and drinking together with two persons on the same day, and the driver was not a substitute driver, and the driver was under the influence of drinking.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff was properly recognized at the time, and that the Plaintiff currently served as an electrical construction company's business position, and the driver's license is essential and revoked for his/her work, there is a risk of leaving from the company when the driver's license is revoked, and there is a need to support his/her spouse and two children and a considerable amount of loan, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused the discretion.
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, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation, rather than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).