(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.03 2017구단30644

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.03 2017구단30644

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 6, 2016, around 10:08, the Plaintiff was given a 30-point penalty points on the side of the expressway with the traffic on the side of the expressway.

In addition, on June 1, 2017, at around 20:13, the Plaintiff was subject to the penalty of 100 points when driving under the influence of alcohol (0.060% of blood alcohol level).

B. On July 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total calculated score exceeds 121 points per year (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on September 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was making a traffic accident for about 21 years or without driving under the influence of alcohol; and (b) the Plaintiff is supporting his/her family members and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain his/her livelihood.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal administrative affairs rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether the disposition is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with

The disposition can not be regarded as legitimate, but it can not be regarded as legitimate.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.03.22 2018구단4346

-부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017구단1104

-부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017구단996

-인천지방법원 2018.10.16 2017구단51386

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017구단1184