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

A. On July 24, 2018, around 00:44, the Plaintiff: (a) driven CK5 car volume while under the influence of alcohol by 0.152% at the front of C on the road before Heung-si, B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On August 15, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) 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 4, 2018, but was dismissed on October 17, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 6 through 8, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case did not cause personal injury due to driving under the influence of alcohol, the Plaintiff’s employee in charge of the business related to the construction and field management is essential to operate the automobile on duty, having economic difficulties and having family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.

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

In such cases, 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 but also the contents and purport of the relevant statutes.