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 March 26, 2017, the Plaintiff holding a Class I ordinary driver’s license was driving a D car on the road of about 10 meters on the front side of the Nam-gu Nam-gu, Gwangju, without the influence of alcohol level of 0.238%, at around 00:48, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.238%.
B. On April 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license on the ground of the above drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal on April 28, 2017, but was ruled dismissed on June 26, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 24, 25, Eul's 1-4, Eul's 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was made for a non-accident for eight years, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessarily required, such as the fact that he/she was driving without the influence of alcohol, the confession and reflects on his/her drinking, the fact that he/she directly purchased food materials while operating a restaurant, and the delivery thereof, and the fact that it is impossible to perform his/her duties when the license is revoked, and that there is substantial inconvenience in livelihood and support for his/her family members, etc., the instant disposition is more unfavorable than that of the public interest to be gained by the instant disposition. Thus
(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 on the public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all relevant circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance, the disposition standards per se are