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 October 27, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.133% of alcohol level, was driving a 2457 km car at the front of the Dmatet in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and driving from the Dmat in front of the Dmat in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the front of the 2457 Fastm of the Fastm Trig Trig Trig-gu road. On the front of the Fast taxi in front, the Plaintiff sustained injury to the passengers of the affected vehicle for about two weeks in need of medical treatment.
B. On November 27, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had injured the Plaintiff due to a traffic accident while driving a drunk (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 11, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is against the plaintiff and the plaintiff is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol again, and the plaintiff has a plan to find employment in the current food service or in the future in the business management position. Considering the fact that the plaintiff needs to move to a vehicle due to the characteristics of the business management position, in order to find employment in the business management position, the driver's license is essential, and that the plaintiff needs to support his spouse and child, the disposition in this case should be revoked because it is too harsh to the plaintiff and it is in violation of the law of abuse of discretion.
B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not is the degree of infringement of public interest by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.