beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, and large-scale driver’s license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2018, on the grounds that the Plaintiff driven D motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.181% on the front of the road located in Busan Southern-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is against the Plaintiff’s abuse of discretionary power due to the Plaintiff’s excessive abuse of discretionary power, in light of the following: (a) five years have to be elapsed in order for the Plaintiff to re-acquisition the instant disposition as a truck driver; (b) the Plaintiff is responsible for the livelihood of the wife suffering from the old and the fluor who has been over 80 years old; and (c) the revocation of the car driver’s license would block his livelihood when the car driver’s license is revoked; and (d) the Plaintiff is in profoundly against the instant drunk driving.
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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).