beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On August 26, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that the Plaintiff revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of September 20, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B-car on the road in front of the Dosung-gun, Dosung-gun, the Dosung-gun, at around 22:05, on August 9, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B-car in the state of blood alcohol concentration of 0.159%.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol in order to go to the hospital rapidly after receiving contact that the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with his/her son while drinking his/her gals in his/her funeral hall at the time of his/her own city, and the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol. In full view of all circumstances, the plaintiff's disposition of this case constitutes a case where the plaintiff abused or abused his/her discretion because it is too harsh to the plaintiff, and there is no history of drinking driving.
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 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 grounds 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). The grounds asserted by the Plaintiff alone are not enough to avoid the drinking driving at the time of regulating the drinking driving.