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 June 26, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at around 02:05, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.121%.
B. Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on October 1, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the following: (a) there was no fact of damage caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was made; (b) the distance of movement is relatively short of 3 km; (c) the use of a usual driving; (d) the confession; and (e) the fact of active cooperation with the detection matters, such as the confession; (c) for about 8 years since the acquisition of the driver’s license, the driver’s license of the clothing seller is absolutely necessary; and (d) the Plaintiff’s family support at the time of the revocation of the driver’s license; and (e) difficulties in maintaining livelihood, etc., the instant disposition is much more unfavorable than the public interest to which
B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, as well as all relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or law, or are in line with the above disposition