The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On August 15, 2020, at around 22:48, the Plaintiff: (a) driven Cystex vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.179% in blood on the front of Busan City (hereinafter “driving”).

B. On August 24, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) as of September 28, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 6, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion only driven within a short distance, the Plaintiff is an employee of delivery, and the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license in light of its business characteristics, and the Plaintiff’s family members are suffering from economic difficulties, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing the discretionary authority due to the Plaintiff’s revocation of the driver’s license compared to the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition.

B. 1) Determination 1) In the event a person who has obtained a driver’s license drives a drinking, whether the driver’s license is revoked shall be deemed an administrative agency’s discretionary act. However, in light of the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the cruelness of the result, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be more serious. In the revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be more emphasized to prevent the revocation rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.