beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Around 23:50 on May 31, 2017, the instant disposition was issued against the Plaintiff’s first-class driver’s license (license number: E) on June 22, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle in front of the land located in Heung-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu (U.S.) in the influence of alcohol at KRW 0.182% (the result of a smoking measurement) with the influence of alcohol.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff, while drinking alcohol in the former workplace meal for the reduction of business operation, did not take a substitute driver after drinking alcohol in the former workplace meal for the reduction of business operation, the plaintiff was under the influence of drinking alcohol.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay a traffic accident due to drinking driving at the time, that the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license as he/she is in charge of the development and management of alcoholic beverages in the business that develops the optical communication parts, and that he/she must support his/her spouse and two children and that he/she must take a good elderly with knee into the hospital, the instant disposition is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power by excessively treating 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, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation than the disadvantage of the party (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du105, May 24, 2012).