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 December 7, 2018, at around 22:58, the Plaintiff driven CK5 car driving in a state of drunk alcohol concentration of 0.12% on the front side of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On December 29, 2018, 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 January 25, 2019, but was dismissed on February 22, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 8, the purport of the whole entries and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation into drinking alcohol driving after the instant drinking driving, and that human and physical damage did not occur, and that the Plaintiff should work at the construction site as an employee belonging to the construction company, taking into account the need for operation of occupational vehicles, economic difficulties, and family members to support, etc., the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion.
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.