beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary and Class 2 ordinary) as of May 13, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven C vehicles under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.188% on the front side of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul on March 25, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition is an unlawful disposition that deviates from discretion and abused by the Plaintiff, and thus, should be revoked, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the fact that: (b) the Plaintiff was able to dynasium in the D market located 500 meters away from her residence; (c) a considerable time has passed after drinking and the distance to her residence was shorter; (d) the Plaintiff was able to engage in an accident due to drunk driving; and (e) the Plaintiff was dependent on the return from the door-to-door truck that the Plaintiff obtained after divorce; and (e) the Plaintiff’s livelihood is difficult due to the instant disposition.
B. In light of the fact that today's number of automobiles rapidly increasing and the number of driver's licenses are issued in large volume, and the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the reduction of traffic conditions is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle is frequently frequent and the result thereof is harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate the driving of a motor vehicle due to the driving of a motor vehicle, the revocation of the driver's licenses on the ground of the driving of a motor vehicle should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation of the revocation, unlike the revocation of the ordinary operating act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2535, Feb. 14, 2008).