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 20, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) around 22:17, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.180% of the blood alcohol concentration on the front side of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).
B. On August 6, 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 September 3, 2019, but was dismissed on October 22, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 6 through 9, the purport of the whole entries and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking driving after the drinking driving of this case, and the driving distance is only ten meters, and the plaintiff's operation is essential for the plaintiff to get the plaintiff's children's children's children, and there are family members who should support, considering all circumstances, the disposition of this case exceeded 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.