beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 26, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a Class 1 ordinary car (license number: C) of the Plaintiff on July 19, 2017, on the ground that he/she was under the influence of alcohol at a 0.122% (the result of a smoking measurement) of blood alcohol concentration in the Han-gu in the Han-gu in the Han-gu in Awning-dong under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) as of August 22, 2017, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 2, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was running a farming house for a scam for a scam scam in dry field and 2 cam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam and scam scam scam scam scam scam scam and
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff was aware of the circumstances after a considerable period of time after drinking, and that the operator of a cargo vehicle with a small ton who works in a nationwide construction site is essential, and that the driver’s license is to support his spouse and two children, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing its discretion.
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 200 May 24, 2012).