beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.29 2017구단33568

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 15, 2017, the Plaintiff, at around 23:58, driven C-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-C (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On July 31, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 17, 2017, but was dismissed on September 19, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 16 evidence, Eul's 5 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred during the conflict with his family members, which led to a fluorial co-operation; (b) the Plaintiff did not cause human and physical injury due to the pertinent drunk driving; and (c) the Plaintiff’s operation of a vehicle is essential for the Plaintiff’s livelihood (in the event the instant disposition becomes final and conclusive, the Plaintiff’s spouse, and his/her child 1) made it difficult for the Plaintiff to live; and (b) the instant disposition is deemed to have abused discretionary authority or abused discretionary authority.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal rules for administrative affairs of administrative agencies, and it is an external citizen or court.