beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On December 8, 2017, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on January 3, 2018, and issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1, large dog, large dog, salvage, and Class 2 ordinary vehicle driving (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B Dama under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.107% on the front of the YY-dong Seo-dong, YY-dong, Busan.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol, but human and physical damage did not occur; (b) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol was around 0.107%, which is the criteria for revoking the driver’s license; (c) the Plaintiff led to a confession after driving under the influence of alcohol and actively cooperate in the investigation; (d) the Plaintiff was working as a driver at a logistics company; and (e) the Plaintiff is in need of the driver’s license; and (e) the Plaintiff is the most likely to support his mother-child, his spouse, and two children, the instant disposition is in violation of the law of abuse of 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).