beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.126% (the result of the smoking measurement) of blood alcohol concentration on March 13, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s license for Class I and II small-sized vehicles (license number: D) as of April 25, 2017, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a C Mexico 530-wheeled vehicle on the front side of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 3, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following: (a) since the Plaintiff’s assertion that he had obtained the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff did not have any history of violating traffic regulations other than minor fams for about 16 years; (b) at all times after drinking the taxi and substitute driving; (c) since the Plaintiff’s license was frequently used as a business for rent-on; (d) the driver’s license is essential and revoked; and (e) the driver’s license is at risk of leaving the taxi if the license is revoked; and (e) the revocation of the first-class ordinary license even when the driver’s license was discovered, it is against the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making.
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the general beneficial administrative act.