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

A. On September 27, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s license to drive a motor vehicle stated in the purport of the claim on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol at around 07:10 on September 10, 2016,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.136%.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on December 13, 2016.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 가축분뇨처리업 종사자로서 업무 특성상 운전면허가 필수적이고, 당시 3시간 가량 수면을 취하여 스스로 술에서 깼다고 생각하여 약 6km 가량 운전을 하게 되었는바, 이러한 제반 사정들을 참작하지 아니한 피고의 이 사건 처분은 재량권을 일탈ㆍ남용하여 위법하다.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. (1) Determination whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be made 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 ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinances of Ministries, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal administrative rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. Whether the pertinent disposition is legitimate or not shall be determined in accordance with the contents and purport

(2) The disposition is legitimate.