2020Gudan1292 Revocation of revocation of driver's license

A

The Governor of Jeollabuk-do National Police Agency

may 3, 2021

may 3, 2021

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The revocation of the first-class ordinary driver's license granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 9, 2020 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 16, 2020, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at around 01:30% of the blood alcohol concentration, driven D motor vehicles at the front of the point in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter “the instant drinking driving”).

B. On September 9, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary license and second-class ordinary license on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 20, 2020.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering all circumstances such as the fact that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to maintain his livelihood if his driver's license is revoked because the Plaintiff moves by using the vehicle, and the Plaintiff is receiving hospital treatment due to high blood pressure, urology, etc., there is considerable burden of hospital expenses, the Plaintiff did not have any history of causing any traffic accident or driving under the influence of alcohol, the Plaintiff was allowed to drive the instant drinking vehicle to move about about 10 meters from the vehicle parked on the road to the rear side, the Plaintiff did not cause personal injury due to the instant drinking driving, and the damage was recovered, and the Plaintiff is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol again. The instant disposition is unlawful since it exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.

C. Whether the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power

1) Relevant legal principles

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion 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 and the public interest to be achieved by the act of violation as the ground for the disposition. 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 administrative agency’s internal business rules, and it has no effect to the public and court externally, and whether such disposition is legitimate or not shall be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as well as the above criteria for disposition. Thus, it cannot be said that the pertinent disposition is legitimate immediately in conformity with the above criteria for disposition. However, unless the above criteria for disposition do not in itself conform with the Constitution or laws, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the sanction administrative disposition in accordance with the above criteria for disposition is significantly unreasonable in light of the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6964.

In particular, when a person who has obtained a driver's license drives a motor vehicle, whether to revoke the driver's license is the discretionary act of the administrative agency. However, in light of the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving and the suspicion of the result, the necessity of public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be more emphasized. Unlike the cancellation of a driver's license, the revocation of the driver's license should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the cancellation of the license, rather than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du67476, Feb. 28, 2018).

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, namely, ① the instant disposition conforms to the criteria for revoking and suspending driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act; ② it is difficult to find reasons or grounds to deem that the instant disposition does not conform with the Constitution or laws; ② it is difficult to deem that there were inevitable circumstances that the Plaintiff had to drive at the time of the instant drinking, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.136%, and the Plaintiff could have caused a serious damage to the Plaintiff who was parked in the instant driving. Considering that there was no reasonable reason to acknowledge that the instant disposition in accordance with the above disposition is significantly unfair; ③ the increase of traffic accidents caused by the drinking driving and the suspicion of its outcome, etc., the Plaintiff’s discretionary authority cannot be seen as exceeding the scope of discretionary authority or exceeding the scope of discretion, even if the Plaintiff asserts the abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jong-chul