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 July 29, 2017, at around 07:39, the Plaintiff driven a DNA low-pollution vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.183% at the front of the C agency located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On September 1, 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 dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 12, 2017, but was dismissed on November 7, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion was made on the day when he returned home to the Plaintiff’s substitute engineer after his usual drinking, the Plaintiff’s disposition was beyond the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power. In light of the following: (a) on the day when he returned to the Republic of Korea, he had not been in direct operation; (b) not causing human and physical damage due to the pertinent drunk driving; (c) the distance from his place of work is far away from his place of work (road transport); and (d) the vehicle’
B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion 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 ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, 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 agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and whether the pertinent disposition is legitimate or not.