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

On February 10, 2018, while under the influence of alcohol at 01:00, the Plaintiff driven a b-low vehicle from the same lot from the Hanyang-dong Port Lone Star-dong, Seoyang-si to the front road of the department store, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at 0.174%.

Accordingly, on March 16, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on April 14, 2018.

[Grounds] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the following facts: (a) without dispute; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 16; and (c) the overall purport of the argument is legitimate; (c) since November 2006, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident or was driving without driving under influence; (d) the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving; (c) the Plaintiff faithfully participated in the investigation into drinking driving; (d) the Plaintiff must deliver it to the customer; and (e) the Plaintiff’s family’s support and maintenance of livelihood are difficult when the driver’s license is revoked, the disposition of

Judgment

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 on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000) 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, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200).