자동차운전면허취소처분변경청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff holding a Class 1 and Class 2 ordinary driving license was under the influence of alcohol level 0.123% in blood alcohol level at around 21:45, and was under the influence of alcohol level 0.123% in front of the Southern apartment.
B. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class 1 large and Class 2 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on July 12, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 11, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In full view of the following: (a) since the Plaintiff’s alleged driver’s license was obtained, there was no history of driving under the influence of alcohol except the instant case; (b) traffic accidents have not occurred due to driving under the influence of alcohol; (c) deeply reflects and repents on driving under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the operation of the Motor Vehicle Service Center to conduct urgent driving operations; and (c) when the driver’s license is revoked, it would cause a big trouble to the said duties; and (d) voluntary activities and efforts have been made for the development of the local community, the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that may be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus,
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. (1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on the 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, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200).