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 23, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.126% at around 21:30.
B. Accordingly, on October 12, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on December 10, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition has been engaged in exemplary driving for 14 years after obtaining the Plaintiff’s driver’s license without traffic accidents or driving skills, the use of ordinary driving by proxy, confession, etc., and that the Defendant’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary, and that the Defendant’s license is difficult to maintain livelihood, family support, debt repayment, and mother-friendly hospital members at the time of revocation of the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff’s best life with a scholarship at university and college, the instant disposition is much more unfavorable than the public interest to be achieved, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing its discretionary authority.
B. 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 public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the act of disposition in question, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or law, or are in line with the above disposition standards, and relevant statutes