beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On February 11, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 motor vehicles) as of March 6, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.111% in blood alcohol level on the road before the claim for change of the fluence in the Daegu hydro-gu Water Station on January 23, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is in operation of the Lee Dong-dong Center on a small scale and the driver’s license is revoked, it is extremely difficult for the Plaintiff and its employees to maintain their livelihood due to the impossibility of operating the Lee Dong-dong Center, the Plaintiff did not have any record of punishment due to drinking driving, and the Plaintiff is in depth against the need for public interest, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is excessive disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff compared to the need for public interest, and thus, it is unlawful.
B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic conditions is growing due to the rapid increase of motor vehicles today, the number of driver's licenses are issued in large quantities, and the traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving is very great. Therefore, the revocation of driver's licenses on the ground of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).