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 13, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that “Around October 1, 2014, at around 05:25:25, the Plaintiff driven a DNA vehicle with approximately 1m prior to the Cju station located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on the grounds of alcohol concentration of 0.206%.”
B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was ruled dismissed on December 3, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 7, whole purport of oral argument
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff was a military doctor who was present at the incidental ceremony and was inevitably drinking due to his superior's recommendation, and the driver was allowed to drive a substitute driver, and the engineer was unable to get the driver from driving the vehicle. The plaintiff was forced to move the vehicle for another vehicle without any choice for the operation of the vehicle. The plaintiff had no power to drive the vehicle before, the plaintiff had no power to drive the vehicle, and the plaintiff needs to promptly drive the vehicle and need to drive the vehicle, etc. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is so harsh that the plaintiff abused or abused the discretionary power.
B. In the modern society where a motor vehicle becomes a public and universal means of transportation, the increase of traffic accidents and the harm and injury caused by drinking driving must be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of a driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of a general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).