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 July 28, 2019, at around 08:50, the Plaintiff driven CMW 320d-car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.191% on the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul on the road (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On August 31, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) 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 25, 2019, but was dismissed on October 29, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 7 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking driving after the driving of the instant case, and the driving distance is only 5 km, the plaintiff as an instructor of a driving school, taking into account all circumstances, such as the fact that the driving of a motor vehicle is essential to drive the motor vehicle on duty for the plaintiff's children's children, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.
B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.
In this case, 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 agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and whether the pertinent disposition is legitimate or not.