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 August 12, 2017, at around 00:30 on August 12, 2017, the Plaintiff driven Cworka car with blood alcohol concentration of 0.169% while under the influence of alcohol at the front of Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).
B. On August 18, 2017, 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 on September 6, 2017, but was dismissed on October 24, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 or 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was made by the Plaintiff was that it was inevitable to operate an agent because it was not an interference with the Plaintiff’s agent on the day when he returned home; (b) it did not cause human and physical damage due to the instant drunk driving; and (c) it is necessary to operate the vehicle due to a large number of local business trips on duty (supply of equipment); and (d) is experiencing economic difficulties, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of the discretion or abused discretionary power.
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 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 externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the legality of the disposition concerned is only the disposition criteria.