2019Guhap693 Revocation of revocation of license for driving motor vehicles

A

The Commissioner of Jeju Provincial Police Agency

July 7, 2020

August 18, 2020

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 5, 2019, the revocation of the first-class ordinary car driver's license issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2019 (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

1. Details of the disposition;

On December 21, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver's license.

○ On May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 04:54 Jeju ***LL 0.132% in blood alcohol concentration 0.132% in front of the convenience store ******** He was driving under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter referred to as “driving under the influence of alcohol”), and destroyed by shocking the columns on the right side of the road.

○ On July 5, 2019, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant disposition was conducted on the ground that the Plaintiff was a drunk driving. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 30, 2019, but was dismissed on September 10, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation by the investigative agency on the instant drinking driving, and the Plaintiff, as a reporter, is essential for the operation of a vehicle during commuting to and from work and coverage, and is suffering from economic difficulties. In light of the aforementioned overall circumstances, the instant disposition was in violation of the law that deviates from or abused discretion.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

④ Whether an administrative disposition is beyond the scope of discretionary authority or is abused by social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages that individuals may suffer from such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation committed as the ground for such disposition, and the relevant disposition. If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministries, such disposition standards per se do not conform with the Constitution or Acts and subordinate statutes, or are considerably unreasonable in light of the substance of the relevant act of violation and the substance and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall not be determined that such disposition is an abuse of discretionary authority, unless there are reasonable grounds to deem that the disposition is unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6946, Sept. 20, 207). Also, considering that the Plaintiff’s public means of transportation and accordingly, the need to strictly comply with the above disposition by taking into account the following factors: (i) the Plaintiff’s excessive issuance of driver’s license for driving of a motor vehicle and thus, (ii) the need to strictly protect pedestrians’s traffic accidents.

5. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, Kim Gung-tae

Judges Noh Jeong-soo

Judges Seo Young-woo