beta
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 December 13, 2019, at around 10:10, the Plaintiff driven a C vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.081% at the front of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and was discovered to police officers.
B. On January 7, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On January 7, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 3, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff driven a relatively short distance, there is no damage, the use of the ordinary driving by proxy, the active cooperation by police officers in the investigation of police officers, the Plaintiff’s occupation (Operation of the sports center) requires a driver’s license to maintain livelihood, and the Plaintiff is obliged to provide the child support for two children, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that it constitutes an unlawful act of deviation from or abuse of discretionary authority.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. 1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages that an individual may suffer by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest achieved by the relevant disposition, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2009Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).