207Gudan5206 Revocation of revocation of the license for driving motor vehicles

Kim* (63 - 1)

The Commissioner of the Gyeonggi Police Agency

March 7, 2008

April 18, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant's revocation disposition of the driver's license against the plaintiff on November 26, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff around 00 on November 6, 200: 00: 10 on October 6, 2007, * from the front road of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government* from the apartment road to the same Dong*********** 00 meters on the following day. The plaintiff's blood alcohol content measured by the pulmonary measuring instruments around 01: 120% on the following day.

B. On November 26, 2007, the defendant applied Article 93 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act to the plaintiff on the ground of the above drunk driving. The defendant revoked the plaintiff's second class ordinary driving license.

[Reasons for Recognition]: Facts without dispute, entry Nos. 4 and 6

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In order to avoid an accident by putting a vehicle on a one-lane road while being driven by a proxy engineer.

As the plaintiff drives a vehicle, it constitutes an act of emergency evacuation.

(2) In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the instant disposition did not cause an accident, and the fact that the driver’s license is necessary, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing its discretion.

B. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

According to the testimony of Eul 6 through 9, 11, and 12, witness stand ** the testimony of November 6, 2007, the plaintiff sent 10 to 23:00, and thereafter 23:3:00, an agent stand * while driving the above 000 vehicles, which are the plaintiff's vehicles, and returned to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff becomes a Sivic, and the plaintiff was called to run a vehicle to ** * in front of the apartment zone in Gangdong-gu, Seoul. The above road is a one-lane, where the passage of the vehicle is not high, and *** * in close-down of the vehicle, the plaintiff was waiting *** * in late-time dispute with the vehicle, and ** * in late-time, the plaintiff continued to open and open a door to the vehicle as ** * in late-time, the plaintiff could not get off without paying the fee ** * * in full-time, * in front of the substitute driving company called from the vehicle 112 and reported 112 to * in front of the vehicle * the direction of the police officer who reported 3 meters away from the above high school * the direction of the plaintiff's arrival * 3 meters.

In the above recognition facts, it is difficult to see that there is a high risk of an accident to the extent that it is not possible to temporarily stop a vehicle in light of the traffic volume, parking location, etc. of the road on which the vehicle is parked. It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff is an act to avoid the risk of an accident in light of the circumstances in which the vehicle was driven by the Plaintiff. The above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the second argument

In light of the fact that even if the cancellation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking, such as drinking driving, etc. is an administrative agency's discretionary act, today's automobile is the mass means of transportation, and accordingly, a large amount of driver's license is issued, and the trend of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and its result are frequently involved, the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving cannot be said to be very great. Therefore, in the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party to be suffered due to the cancellation. Accordingly, the degree of violation of laws and regulations is not less than twice the standard of the state of the driving under the Road Traffic Act, and considering the inevitable circumstances where the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving cannot be deemed to have been avoided, the disposition in this case is a legitimate disposition within the scope of discretionary authority to realize the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges