beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on April 6, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven D motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.110% on the road in front of Cowned Oil Station B located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan, on the grounds that the Plaintiff driven D motor vehicle (hereinafter the instant disposition).
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an essential driver’s license due to the nature of the business that must operate 80 km a day on an average while in charge of material management in the company for waste fueling and power generation facilities. The Plaintiff’s demand for a proxy driver from the instant disposition, but failed to allocate an article, thereby driving a vehicle with approximately 3 hours on board the vehicle. The Plaintiff has no history of traffic accident or drinking driving for 13 years, and the Plaintiff driving a vehicle with two breeding knee in a week on an open mother’s side care. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful since it abused the Plaintiff’s discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk 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 a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party that would be suffered from the revocation of the license, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da1548,