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

A. On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.098% of alcohol level around 21:30.

B. Accordingly, on September 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of revocation of a driver’s license (class I, Class II ordinary, and class II ordinary) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged drunk driving did not cause human and physical injury, and the blood alcohol concentration is relatively minor, and the Plaintiff is in a business position of an automobile company and thus, the Plaintiff would be dismissed from the company when the driver’s license is revoked, and his family support difficulties are experienced, 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 this case, even if the criteria for disciplinary administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not must be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above disposition criteria,

Therefore, the disposition can not be said to be legitimate, but the above disposition disposition does not conform with the Constitution or the law itself, or the punishment disposition in accordance with the above disposition disposition is the reason for the disposition.