The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On May 30, 2020, at around 23:05, the Plaintiff driven a CKan-Pon car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.123% on the front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (B).

(2) On June 9, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 2 common) 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 August 4, 2020, but was dismissed on September 15, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole oral argument as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the traffic accident is not caused due to the plaintiff's drinking driving of this case, the distance of drinking driving of this case is only 400 meters, the plaintiff has no power to drive under the influence of alcohol, the plaintiff's vehicle driver's license is essential as a selective engineer, the driving is an important means to maintain the family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, etc., the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretion

Judgment

Today, in light of the fact that a rapid increase in automobiles and a large number of driver's licenses are issued in traffic days, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are frequently frequent and there are many cases where the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate driving of a motor vehicle, it is more necessary to realize public interest rather than disadvantages suffered by a driver who does not cause a traffic accident due to the revocation disposition of the license of a motor vehicle driving (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 196). The following facts can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier.