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 15, 2017, at around 18:57, the Plaintiff was driving B B B in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.128% at the front of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 553 High School (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On August 30, 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 12, 2017, but was dismissed on November 7, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion ① did not cause personal injury due to drinking driving of this case; ② the Plaintiff’s drinking level was not serious at the time of crackdown; ③ the Plaintiff’s driving of a vehicle for the Plaintiff’s occupation (fishery products sales business); and ③ the Plaintiff and his family members’ livelihood is difficult if the instant disposition becomes final and conclusive, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of 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 it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the relevant disposition is legitimate.