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 15, 2017, at around 01:07, the Plaintiff driven B motor vehicles from the point of the old-si Mapo-dong B to the same Sipo-dong Mapo-dong Mapo-dong Mapo-dong Mapo-dong, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.122%.
B. Accordingly, on the date stated in the purport of the claim, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 large, class 1 ordinary) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal within a legitimate period, but was dismissed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 4 through 10, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Considering the inevitable nature of a driver’s license for the Plaintiff’s livelihood and activities, the circumstances leading to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving, the Plaintiff’s violation of the laws and regulations, and the fact that the Plaintiff drives a motor vehicle for a long time, the instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion.
B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by objectively examining the content of the offense, which is the grounds for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances complying therewith, etc., and by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages to be inflicted on an individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If a disposition standard is prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standard does not in itself conform with the Constitution or laws, or if there is no reasonable ground to believe that the punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above disposition standard is considerably unfair in light of the content of the offense, and the content and purport of the relevant laws and regulations, it shall not be readily determined that the disposition is an abuse of discretion, unless there is a reasonable ground to believe that such disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion