beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 15, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven BK 3 cars from the Y3 car distance located in the Y-dong-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-dong in a safe state in a safe state of eye while under the influence of alcohol on March 15, 2017 (the result of blood collection), the Defendant, applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1 large and ordinary vehicles, Class 2 ordinary vehicles (license number: C) as of May 6, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that one of the following persons, while drinking and beer, was well aware of the same kind of meal and beer with the other persons, was under the influence of drinking driving instead of the Plaintiff.
In addition to these circumstances, considering the fact that the Plaintiff obtained a driver's license in 191, there is no time for the Plaintiff to drive under the influence of alcohol on one occasion, that the Plaintiff is currently working as a driver of a kindergarten, that the Plaintiff is maintaining his livelihood while working as a driver of a kindergarten, and that there is a concern about the de facto position when the driver's license is revoked due to bad credit holder, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing the discretion.
B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk 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 a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation than the disadvantage of the party (see Supreme Court Decision 200 May 5, 2012).