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 15, 2019, at around 22:10, the Plaintiff driven CK3’s vehicle volume while under the influence of alcohol by 0.117% at the front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On August 13, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 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 22, 2019, but was dismissed on October 15, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 7, the purport of the whole entries and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff alleged that he actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and considering all circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s operation of a motor vehicle is essential due to frequent appearance of employees working in real estate brokerage offices, having economic difficulties and having 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 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 thus, it is not effective to externally bind citizens or courts, and whether such disposition is legitimate or not is not related to the above criteria for disposition.