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 June 5, 2017, around 13:10 on June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff driven C rocketing car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.21% on the front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.
(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)
On July 19, 2017, 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 filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on October 11, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff asserted that he had been driving in an accident for 17 years, and that the Plaintiff was to deliver girls and fruits to a motor vehicle, etc., the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.
B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power under the 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 act of disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal administrative affairs rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether the disposition is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with
The disposition can not be said to be legitimate, but the above disposition standards are in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws.