(a) Criteria for exercising discretionary power in the revocation of driver's license;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the disposition of revoking a driver's license for an individual taxi driver who has inflicted three-way injuries on the owner while driving under influence;

A. In a case where a person who obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident by intention or negligence while driving a motor vehicle, even if the revocation of the driver's license is a discretionary act of an administrative agency, in light of the situation where the driver's license is issued in large quantity, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the cruelness of the result, etc., the need for public interest should be emphasized to prevent the traffic accident caused by drinking driving. Therefore, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, the revocation of the driver's license should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation of the license.

(b) The case holding that a disposition to revoke a driver's license for an individual taxi driver who has inflicted an injury on the owner of a taxi who is in need of three weeks during drunk driving shall not deviate from discretion

Article 78 subparagraph 4 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu677 delivered on December 3, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the above driver's license to be revoked by the defendant on September 2, 1969 with the first-class ordinary driver's license on March 14, 1985 and operated private taxi with the driver's license on March 14, 1985 (0.11%) that the plaintiff's personal taxi transportation business was under the influence of alcohol on April 3, 1987 (0. 0. 11%) that the plaintiff's personal taxi transportation business was under the influence of alcohol due to the negligence during driving of the above vehicle and caused 3 weeks of interest to the above difficulties. The plaintiff was under the premise that the above driver's license was revoked by the defendant on April 28, 1987, and that the plaintiff's personal taxi transportation business was under the premise that the above victim's personal taxi driver's license was under the influence of the above driver's license's license on the ground that the above victim's personal taxi transportation business was under the influence of the above victim's driver's license.

2. However, the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff due to the cancellation disposition of the above driver's license is ultimately a threat to the livelihood of the plaintiff and his family. This is not directly due to the cancellation disposition of the above driver's license, but it is an indirect relation with the above cancellation disposition of the driver's license. It is an indirect relation with the above cancellation disposition as the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff's personal taxi transport business operator due to the cancellation disposition of the above driver's license. In the event that a person who obtained a wrong driver's license caused a traffic accident by intention or negligence while driving a drinking, even though it is the discretionary act of an administrative agency, it is today's mass means of transportation and the necessity for public interest to prevent the traffic accident due to the mass driving, the increase of traffic accident due to the drinking driving, and the cruelness of the result, it should be emphasized more than the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff's above cancellation disposition of the driver's license after receiving the victim's license's license for personal taxi transport business from the above victim's disadvantage after the above cancellation disposition of the driver's license.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified in misunderstanding the legal principles as to discretion in the revocation disposition of driver's license, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-il (Presiding Justice)