The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On December 21, 2019, at around 07:00, the Plaintiff driven the Category of Cnibus Baba in a drunken state of 0.115% alcohol concentration on the front of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(hereinafter “instant drunk driving.” On March 27, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, class 2, and class 2) on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 26, 2020, but was dismissed on April 28, 2020.

[Grounds] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the entire pleadings, the purport of the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion that there is no driving power on the plaintiff. The plaintiff's automobile driver's license as an insurance solicitor is essential means to maintain the family's livelihood, and the plaintiff faces economic difficulties with the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful since

Judgment

If a person who obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident intentionally or by negligence while driving a motor vehicle, even though the revocation of the driver's license is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large volume, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of the result, the need for public interest to prevent the traffic accident caused by drinking driving should be emphasized more, and in the revocation of the driver's license, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative action.

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5988 delivered on July 26, 1996