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 24, 2017, around 23:26, the Plaintiff driven D’s low-pollution vehicle volume while under the influence of alcohol by 0.142% at the front of the C’s station located in Seoyang-gu C’s Gyeyang-gu B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On November 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I, II, and II) 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 November 9, 2017, but was dismissed on December 12, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause personal injury due to drinking alcohol driving of the instant case, the instant disposition was either exceeding the scope of discretion or abused discretion, taking into account the fact that the operation of vehicles is essential for business (sale and delivery as an electronic commerce business operator) and is suffering from economic difficulties.
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 agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above criteria for disposition but also the contents and purport of the relevant statutes.