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 December 28, 2018, at around 23:36, 2018, the Plaintiff driven Crocketing car volume while under the influence of alcohol by 0.163% at the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul. (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).
B. On January 15, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) 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 February 7, 2019, but was dismissed on March 5, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 5 through 9, the purport of the whole entries and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and considering the fact that it is essential to operate a vehicle on duty due to frequent appearance of a company member in charge of trust business, and having experienced economic difficulties, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of the discretion or abuse of discretionary power.
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 punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not is in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above criteria