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 April 1, 2019, at around 23:20, the Plaintiff driven C the NAS car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.112% on the front of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On April 19, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 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 April 23, 2019, but was dismissed on May 14, 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. In light of all circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause personal injury or injury due to the pertinent drunk driving, the Plaintiff did not have a high drinking level, and the Plaintiff’s driving constitutes a means of livelihood as a self-employed person who operates the Switzerland Deputy Commissioner, and having experienced economic difficulties, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of 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 this case, 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 externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above disposition criteria but also the contents of the relevant laws and regulations.