자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. On October 14, 2016, the Plaintiff holding a Class 1 driver’s license for a Class 1 large, Class 1 common, and Class 2 motorcycle driver’s license for a Class 2 motor vehicle driving D motor vehicle up to the road front of the YY YY YYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU,
B. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class I large vehicles, Class I ordinary vehicles, and Class II motor vehicles (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on December 14, 2016, but the claim was dismissed on January 17, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 6 through 10, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged alcoholic beverage was under driving in order to avoid trial expenses and concerns of assault and violence with other customers, the driving should continue to be conducted for the purpose of maintaining livelihood, and the anti-discrimination, etc., the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that may be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality or proportionality.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are