자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 15, 2018, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.122% alcohol level around 23:53.
B. Accordingly, on February 14, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (Class I ordinary) for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was merely a mere drunk driving and did not cause a traffic accident, and that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is required to be employed as an instructor, the instant disposition was beyond the scope of the discretion or abused discretion.
B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.
In this case, even if the criteria for disciplinary administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not must be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above disposition criteria,
Although the disposition can not be said to be legitimate immediately, it is not in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws, or it is found that the disposition is considerably unfair in light of the content and purport of the act of violation and the relevant laws and regulations.