1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On January 27, 2020: (a) around 03:17, 2020, the Plaintiff driven C License for Driving Motor Vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.109% alcohol level on the front of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City(hereinafter “instant drinking”).

On February 8, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On February 20, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 31, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire argument as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff did not have any accident due to the drinking driving of this case. The distance of drinking driving of this case is only 400 meters, the plaintiff did not have any history of drinking driving, the plaintiff actively cooperate in the investigation into drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff as an insurance business operator, and the plaintiff must have a driver's license as an insurance business operator, and the driving is an important means to maintain the family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it is against the law by

Judgment

Today, in light of the fact that the rapid increase of automobiles and the number of driver's licenses are issued in large quantities, and the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are 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 the disadvantage suffered by the driver who did not cause a traffic accident due to the revocation disposition of the license for the driving of a motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 1996). The whole of the arguments in the foregoing.