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 12, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B), and around 01:00 on July 18, 201, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.117% from the Round public parking lot at Osan-si to 820 Osan-si, Osan-si, Maridia6 car was controlled as driving day of approximately 600 meters, under the influence of alcohol level from 0.117% from Osan-si to 820 Osan-si.
B. On August 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph; and (b) revoked the driver’s license as stated in the preceding paragraph as of September 2, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 24, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is an essential driving for the purchase of materials and the supply of products while operating the manufacturer, the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident to human and material damage, the blood alcohol concentration is relatively minor, and the Plaintiff’s spouse and two children should support the instant disposition, there is an error of deviation or abuse of discretionary power.
B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the circumstances in compliance with such disposition. 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 of administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court.