beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 23, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a car for the catfy on the front road B before the lusium B in the state of alcohol at 0.194% (the result of blood collection) around April 23, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (license number D) as of June 21, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 15, Eul 4 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion completed a briefing session, including a friendly and alcoholic beverage in the restaurant on the same day, and the mobile phone exhauster, and did not take an agent, and the Plaintiff was able to take part in a few hours in the vehicle, and controlled the drinking driving.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff continued to use a substitute driving in ordinary places and was only available on a day, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to commute to and from work for a long distance as a member of the automobile company, and the spouse, two children, and the old-age who have a physical disability, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused 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 2012Du105, May 24, 2012).