beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 9, 2015, at around 23:30, the Plaintiff driven DenzK car volume on the front of the gas station located in Pyeongtaek-si B, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.134%.
B. On October 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (license number: E) on November 22, 2015 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful as it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff excessively deviates from or abused discretion, considering the following circumstances: (a) since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff had been driving without any traffic accident or the influence of drunk driving; (b) there was no personal or material injury due to the drunk driving; and (c) the driving distance was relatively short; and (d) the Plaintiff is in need of driving for various businesses and the delivery of return; and (b) the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff excessively deviates from or abused 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 in the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving on the ground of a drunk driving, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation, rather than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).