beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of August 1, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven DK-B car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.127% on the front of C in Changwon-si, Changwon-si B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On September 21, 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 claim on November 1, 2016.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the driver’s license was essential to maintain his livelihood by carrying out the business and the business management in the workplace, and that the Plaintiff was driving without being taken more than six hours after drinking three beer, and that the Plaintiff did not have the record of driving under the influence of alcohol, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it exceeded and abused the discretionary authority.
B. The determination of today’s level of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is frequent and the result thereof is harsh, so it is very important for the 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 case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff’s level of drinking constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the Plaintiff’s drinking driving under this case’s standard constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28].