beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of November 22, 2014 on the ground that, around October 22:25, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.104% on the road front of the C-type land located in B at permanent residence, on October 10, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.104%.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is supporting his/her family while running a business as an insurance agency, and the driver’s license is revoked, the insurance business is no longer available and making it difficult for him/her to maintain his/her livelihood, the exemplary driving has been done before the drinking driving of this case, the Plaintiff provided a large number of services to the ordinary local community, and the instant disposition is in profoundly against the drinking driving of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it goes against the Plaintiff’s disadvantage compared to the needs of public interest, and thus, it is against the discretionary authority.
B. In today’s determination, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the large number of driver’s licenses is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s licenses on the grounds of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party that would be incurred due to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). In addition, it is urgent that the Plaintiff could not avoid driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.