The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On September 26, 2020, around 01:20, the Plaintiff driven C Pod Driving on the front side of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking”). On October 7, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, class 2, and class 2 bicycle) on the ground of the instant drinking on the ground of the Plaintiff’s driving of the instant drinking (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for administrative adjudication with the Central Administrative Adjudication Committee on October 16, 2020, but was dismissed on November 17, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's traffic accident did not occur due to the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the distance of driving of this case is limited to 500 meters, the plaintiff's driver's license is necessarily required for a business trip across the country, driving is an important means to maintain his/her livelihood, and the disposition of this case causes difficulties in his/her livelihood, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it exceeds 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, and the need to strictly observe the traffic laws and regulations is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are frequently frequently 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 to suffer disadvantages due to the cancellation of the driver's license (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 1996). The whole purport of the arguments can be acknowledged by taking into account the aforementioned evidence.