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 January 29, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.15% alcohol level around 07:45.
B. Accordingly, on March 9, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on May 14, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s perception as of the day immediately preceding the Plaintiff’s argument that he was frighten and was frighten enough to sleep; (b) there was no damage from driving of the instant case; (c) the Plaintiff actively cooperateed in the detection of drunk driving by using a substitute driving; and (d) the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the detection of drunk driving by making a confession; and (e) the driver’s license is absolutely necessary on the business (purchase and delivery of metal processing DNA fishing); and (e) the Plaintiff’s family support, debt repayment, and debt repayment are difficult when the driver’s license is revoked; and (c) the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is much more than the Plaintiff’s disadvantage that is infringed by the instant disposition; and (d) the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion.
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 of 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 relevant act of disposal, 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 themselves