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 November 13, 2019, at around 23:30, the Plaintiff driven a C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.136% at the frontway of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and discovered the traffic accident to police officers.
B. On December 20, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff caused two ordinary traffic accidents by driving under the influence of alcohol as above.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On January 9, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 18, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 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, followed the law for 17 years after obtaining a driver’s license, actively cooperates with police officers in the investigation, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s occupation, and the Plaintiff ought to support his family, the instant disposition is in violation of the law that excessively harshs the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretion.
(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 suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2000Du11779, if the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with