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

가. 원고가 2017. 11. 28. 18:45경 승용차를 난폭하게 운전하다가 입건되어 결국 약식명령(☞ 벌금 300만원)까지 받은 사실 등에 기초하여, 피고가 2017. 12. 15. 원고에게 별지(☞ 을 1)에 나오는 바와 같이 여러 종류의 운전면허(제1종 대형보통과 제2종 보통)를 일괄적으로 취소하는 이 사건 처분을 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

B. In this case where the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case was lawfully made on the basis of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the plaintiff is not only unlawful in the disposition of this case due to ① the cause of the claim as shown in the attached Form, but also ② even if not, it is too harsh.

(☞ “비례의 원칙” 위반)는 취지로 주장한다.

C. The criteria for the disposition to revoke driver's license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the "instant criteria for disposition") are merely internal handling guidelines of administrative agencies, and it is not externally binding on citizens or courts. Thus, the legality of the disposition to revoke driver's license pursuant to the instant criteria for disposition should not be determined by the instant criteria for disposition, but by the content and purport of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

In order to utilize it as the basic data for the revocation and suspension of driver's license, the term "spons points" as one of the disposition standards in this case refers to the points allocated according to the severity of the violation and the degree of damage, etc. of the violation of the law or the causes of the accident. The disposition standards according to the calculation of the penalty points are discretionary rules concerning the handling of affairs within the administrative agency, not legal effects

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20236, Mar. 27, 1998). Meanwhile, the revocation of a driver’s license under Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act is a discretionary act, and thus, the instant case is concerned.