1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On January 9, 2020, at around 01:00, the Plaintiff driven the C C Crick Quantities while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.124% on the front of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (B).

(2) On February 1, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 small vehicles) 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 February 18, 2020, but was dismissed on April 14, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff's vehicle maintenance business is essential because the plaintiff is engaged in the automobile maintenance business, driving is an important means for maintaining the family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is illegal as

Judgment

If a person who obtained a driver's license causes a traffic accident intentionally or by negligence while driving a motor vehicle, even though the revocation of the driver's license is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large volume, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of the result, the need for public interest to prevent the traffic accident caused by drinking driving should be emphasized more, and in the revocation of the driver's license, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative action.

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5988 delivered on July 26, 1996