beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 15, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a c bargaining car on the front of Pyeongtaek-si B while under the influence of alcohol on May 15, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (license number: D) as of July 1, 2017, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion was conducted after drinking alcohol at the place of returning to the workplace for eight years, and the driving of drinking alcohol was controlled.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of a driver’s license for about about 27 years, the Plaintiff did not have any history of driving under the influence of alcohol or traffic accidents except for minor one violation of laws and regulations for about 27 years, the Plaintiff did not inflict human and physical damage on others due to drinking driving, and the Plaintiff’s work in an assembly in the automobile company and must move the completed vehicle while driving the vehicle, so the driver’s license is essential, the Plaintiff’s spouse, two children, and old-parents who have difficulty in driving, etc., the instant disposition is in
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking 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 drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.