(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.12.01 2017구단32145

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 2017.12.01 2017구단32145

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 July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a B ecub-free car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.213% under the influence of alcohol at the front of the entrance of the port of Yongsan-gu in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On August 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on August 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 17 and 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an act of attaching a large banner on the road, and thus the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, and the Plaintiff’s license is essential to support his/her family members. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

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 the disposition is above.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2017.12.01 2017구단32077

-서울행정법원 2018.02.02 2017구단36086

-서울행정법원 2018.02.02 2017구단35601

-서울행정법원 2018.02.02 2017구단36376

-서울행정법원 2018.02.02 2017구단36505