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 April 27, 2017, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s license to drive a vehicle stated in the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol at around 22:30 on April 14, 2017,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.123%.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)
On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on July 4, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 18 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff got a taxi but did not cause any accident that led to driving under the influence of alcohol on the wind, and the instant disposition, which was not taken into account when the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked, is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.
(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;
C. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as a ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for a punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinances of Ministries, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal business rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether it is legitimate should be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant laws
this is immediately applicable to this case.