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 May 30, 2019, at around 06:30, the Plaintiff was under the influence of 0.12% of blood alcohol level on the front of B apartment in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the Plaintiff: (a) was driving CW car volume of halog halog (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”); (b) collision with the rear pande of the Plaintiff’s signal signal signaled vehicle in front of the direction, and (c) collision with the rear pande of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the direction; and (d) the said rocketing vehicle caused a traffic accident by causing the collision of Erocketing or Habrid vehicles standing in front of the vehicle.
B. On June 8, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s instant driver’s license (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) constitutes a traffic accident on the ground that the instant driver’s license constitutes a traffic accident
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 27, 2019, but was dismissed on August 13, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 39, and Eul Nos. 5 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff alleged that he actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and considering the overall circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff is essential to operate his business as an insurance solicitor and a person engaged in food delivery business, having economic difficulties and having family members to support, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.
B. Whether the relevant legal doctrine-based administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretionary power under the social norms or abused discretionary power is determined, the content of the offense as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the pertinent disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.