[자동차운전면허취소처분취소 ][하집1997-1, 569]
Whether an objection against the revocation disposition of driver's license under the Regulations on Administrative Disposition by the Motor Vehicle Driver's Fee System constitutes an administrative appeal, which is a prerequisite for administrative litigation (affirmative)
The system of filing an objection prescribed by the Regulations on Administrative Measures for the Handling of Motor Vehicle Drivers' Licenses and the system of administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act shall be filed in writing as an institution that seeks the cancellation or modification of administrative disposition. In addition, if the administrative agency deems that there are reasons for the agency to file an objection or an administrative appeal, the relevant disposition may be cancelled or modified; it is not easy to distinguish between those who do not have professional legal knowledge due to the same or similar contents or the agency which has submitted the written statement; the period of filing an administrative appeal can be imposed while waiting for the result of the examination of the objection; and the system of administrative appeals may also hinder the prompt remedy of citizens; therefore, the principle of administrative appeals should be allowed only in cases where the law prescribes otherwise, it is likely to violate the right of citizens to a prompt trial; if an administrative agency prepares and submits an application separately; and the establishment of the system is widely known, which causes confusion in legitimate administrative appeal; thus, even if an administrative agency does not arbitrarily establish a system similar to the administrative appeal system, it is reasonable to regard the system of administrative appeal before the administrative disposition of driver's.
Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of July 27, 1994); Articles 3(1) and 18(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
Daegu District Police Agency
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant's revocation of the driver's license against the plaintiff on May 31, 1996 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or in accordance with Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-2, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2, and 4-2, the whole purport of the pleading can be acknowledged, and there is no other counter-proof.
A. On April 13, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired Class 2 driver's license for a motorcycle, Class 2 driver's license for a ordinary vehicle on March 24, 1993, Class 1 driver's license for a ordinary vehicle on March 22, 1994, and Class 1 driver's license for a ordinary vehicle on March 22, 1994: (Omission) under the influence of alcohol on May 30, 196, the blood alcohol concentration was 0.10%, while driving (vehicle number omitted) on a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and driving on the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on his/her own (vehicle number omitted) on the front side of the Seo-gu Man-dong, Seo-gu, Man-dong Private Teaching Institutes located in the same area while driving on the breath of a ston-dong, Seo-gu, which was under the influence of alcohol.
B. Accordingly, on June 7, 1996, the defendant issued a disposition to revoke the above driver's license against the plaintiff retroactively as of May 31, 1996, on the ground that the above act of the plaintiff falls under the individual standard serial number 2 (under the influence of alcohol) of the disposition of driver's license as stipulated in Article 78 (1) 8 and Article 41 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53 (1) [Attachment 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 695 of Aug. 29, 196).
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The defendant's assertion
According to Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of Jul. 27, 1994; hereinafter the same), Articles 3(1) and 18(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, a lawsuit seeking cancellation of an administrative disposition cannot be instituted without going through a ruling by an administrative appeal against the disposition, and the plaintiff shall file a petition for administrative appeal within 90 days from the date when he became aware of the disposition, even though he was notified of the disposition in this case on June 7, 1996, he did not file a petition for administrative appeal against the disposition in this case until 90 days have passed from the time when he was notified of the disposition in this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the revocation lawsuit in this case is unlawful without going through the previous trial procedure.
B. Relevant statutes
(1) According to Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a litigation seeking revocation shall not be instituted in cases where an administrative appeal against a disposition in question may be filed under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, and Article 3(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that an administrative appeal may be filed under this Act except as otherwise provided in other Acts with respect to a disposition or omission by an administrative agency, and Article 18(1) of the same Act provides that an appeal for adjudication shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the administrative agency becomes aware of the disposition in question.
(2) Meanwhile, Article 17 Paragraph (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "a written appeal shall be submitted to a ruling authority or to an administrative agency which is the respondent," while Article 17 Paragraph (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that the administrative agency upon receipt of the written appeal shall make a disposition or confirmation in accordance with the purport of the appeal and notify the ruling authority and the appellant without delay."
(3) In addition, Article 19 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "an appeal shall be filed in writing." In the case of an appeal against "an appeal against a disposition," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "in the case of an appeal against a disposition, matters concerning the name and address of the appellant, ② the administrative agency that is the respondent and the ruling agency, ③ the contents of the disposition subject to the appeal, ④ the date when the disposition is known, ⑤ the purport and reason of the appeal, ⑤ the notification of the administrative agency which made the disposition
(c) Markets:
(4) Since the above administrative appeal system is interpreted as a document which does not require strict administrative appeals. Thus, if the plaintiff's objection is filed with a written objection seeking cancellation or modification of the above administrative appeal system, it shall be deemed as an administrative appeal under Article 18 regardless of the title and the submission agency, and if it is possible to correct the defective matters, it shall be deemed as unlawful only when the correction is impossible, and even if the purport of the written objection is unclear because the claimant does not have professional legal knowledge, it shall be interpreted and processed to the extent that the written objection is advantageous to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu16250 delivered on September 5, 195). Since the plaintiff's objection cannot be seen as being filed with the court's decision-making authority, the court below's decision-making authority's rejection of the above administrative appeal system should be decided differently from the original purport of the above administrative appeal system's cancellation or modification, and it shall be decided as an administrative agency's rejection or cancellation of the above administrative appeal system.
3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. The parties' assertion
The Defendant asserted that the instant disposition is lawful in light of the background of the instant disposition and the relevant provisions of the relevant statutes.
As to this, the plaintiff, as the 2nd male and female head, all parents of the 17,00,000 foot, live in the 17,00,00 foot pole, support three their lives, and work as a machine machine from July 1, 1995 to the date of delivery of printed materials to the customer while working as an advisory printing company within the 3rd Daegu 3 Industrial Complex from July 1, 1995. If the driver's license is revoked, the driver's license will lose the workplace, and the degree of drinking is relatively minor. In light of the various circumstances, the defendant's disposition revoked the driver's license against the plaintiff should be revoked because the defendant violated the principle of profit and bridge, rather than the realization of the public interest purpose, and therefore, the defendant's disposition revoked the driver's license against the plaintiff violates the principle of discretionary power.
(b) Markets:
In the case of driver's license in a state of drinking, the decision of revocation shall belong to the administrative agency's discretion, and the exercise of the discretionary authority shall be decided by comparing and comparing the public interest to be achieved by the cancellation of driver's license with the disadvantage of the other party caused by the driver's loss to the driver due to the cancellation of driver's license in consideration of all the circumstances such as the motive, circumstance, age, and disadvantage of the driver, etc. of the driver while driving in a state of drinking, and it is natural to determine whether to revoke the license. However, today's large quantity of motor vehicles are supplied as one of the mass mass means of public transportation, and accordingly, the vehicle's driver's license is also issued in a state of drinking water supply, and accordingly, the occurrence of traffic accident due to drinking, especially the increase in the occurrence of traffic accident due to drinking driving, and the result is harsh. In light of the above, the plaintiff's assertion that the above disposition of this case is no longer necessary for the plaintiff to achieve the scope of discretion.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition is unlawful, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Lee Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)