beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Around 00:05 on January 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1, Class 1, Class 1 (Traler) as of March 27, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a C-car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.173% on the front of C-si on the ground that he/she driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.17% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on May 24, 2016.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s assertion was abused and abused discretion in light of the fact that the Plaintiff worked as an article of Leper and supported his family, and that the driver’s license is essential to maintain his/her family’s livelihood.
B. In light of the fact that traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the results are harsh, etc., it is highly necessary for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, it is necessary to emphasize the general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party that would have suffered from the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). Considering that the Plaintiff’s drinking level constitutes the criteria for revoking a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and that the instant disposition based on such criteria falls under the inevitable circumstances where the Plaintiff had no choice but to deem it unreasonable.