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 September 5, 2017, at around 23:47, the Plaintiff driven a C Loading Vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.160% in front of the Seoul Jung-gu B apartment 1002 (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On September 18, 2017, 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 October 10, 2017, but was dismissed on October 24, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was close to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion by exceeding the scope of discretion, or by abuse of discretion, considering the fact that the operation of a vehicle was essential in the business (house delivery business) and the economic difficulties were experienced.
B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.
In this case, even if the criteria for disciplinary 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 externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not shall be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above disposition criteria, but also
(2) The disposition is legitimate.