The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 10, 2020, at around 01:40 on March 10, 2020, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.091% at the front of the Busan Heung-gu.

B. On March 31, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the purport of the claim pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol 0.091% of blood alcohol level.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on April 17, 2020, but the said claim was dismissed on June 16, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, and 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion only moves about 150 meters in the main state; (b) active cooperation was made in the control process; (c) the secondary restaurant delivery business license is required; (d) where the driver’s license is revoked, the maintenance of livelihood is difficult; and (e) the drinking driving is against the truth, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing its discretionary authority.

B. In light of the fact that a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is greater as the traffic situation is congested on the day, and the traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequent and the results of the frequent traffic accidents are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly control driving to protect the majority of the public and pedestrians, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving should be more emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the parties to be incurred by the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.

Supreme Court Decision 200