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 7, 2017, at around 23:25, the Plaintiff driven CMW car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.159% on the front of the Y-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Ansan-si B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On November 6, 2017, 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 November 16, 2017, but was dismissed on January 9, 2018.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 1, 5 through 12, 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 the drinking driving of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s disposition was beyond the scope of discretion or abused discretion, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s employee is essential to operate his/her occupational vehicle and experienced 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 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 or not should be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, as well as the above criteria for disposition.