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

A. On June 28, 200, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 2 driver’s license (B), Class 1 driver’s license (C) on February 7, 2003, and around July 26, 2017, around 23:30 on July 26, 2017, under the influence of alcohol by 0.169% during the influence of alcohol level to the day of driving approximately 4 km at approximately 4 km.

B. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff as of September 25, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to a drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was driven without an accident for about 15 years, the Plaintiff used the ordinary driving, the Plaintiff’s operation is essential to maintain livelihood, the Plaintiff did not cause personal and physical damage, and the Plaintiff is engaged in volunteer service while supporting his parents, the instant disposition is an abuse of discretion.

B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not 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 disposal, and all relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, it is stipulated in the internal rules