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 September 11, 2019, at around 03:49, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.146% on the front of B at the time of Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On October 25, 2019, 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, but was dismissed on December 10, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 6, Eul's 1 through 6, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the 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, 12 years of accidentless driving experience, 12 years of full-time driving, 3-time driving by proxy, 3-time driving by the Plaintiff is essential to drive a vehicle as its member, 3-time driving is suffering from economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary authority.
B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive 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 such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances.
In such cases, 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 thus, it is not effective to externally bind citizens or courts, and whether such disposition is legitimate or not is not related to the above criteria for disposition.