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

A. On September 3, 2017, at around 01:04, the Plaintiff driven B low-priced car volume with the alcohol level of 0.154% under the influence of alcohol at the front of the 3666 Gwangju-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 29, 2017, but was dismissed on November 21, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 or 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 음주 후 차에서 상당한 시간 잠을 잤기 때문에 술이 깼다고 생각한 나머지 직접 운행을 하게 되었던 점, 업무(우정서기로 우편물 배달 업무 담당)상 외부 출장이 많아 차량 운행이 필수적인 점, 경제적으로 어려움을 겪고 있는 점 등을 고려하여 볼 때, 이 사건 처분은 재량권의 범위를 벗어나거나 재량권을 남용한 것이다.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above criteria for disposition, but also the related statutes