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 10, 2019, at around 21:45, the Plaintiff driven CK5 car driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.151% on the front of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On July 27, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II 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 August 28, 2019, but was dismissed on October 15, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that human and physical damage did not occur, the driving distance is only 500 meters, the Plaintiff’s operation of occupational vehicles is essential for delivery business as a business employee, and there are family members who need to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond 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 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.