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

가. 원고가 2019. 2. 4. 자동차를 운전하다가 중앙선을 침범하여 교통사고를 내 사람들을 다치게 함으로써 이미 벌점 55점을 받았던 데다가, 2019. 5. 6. 03:44경 술에 취한 상태에서(☞ 혈중 알코올농도 0.057%) 자동차를 운전하다가 단속되어 벌점 100점을 추가로 받은 사정 등에 기초하여, 피고가 2019. 6. 4. 원고에게 -별지(☞ 을 1)에 나오는 바와 같이 ‘연간 누산 벌점이 취소처분 기준(1년 121점) 이상’이 되었다는 처분사유를 명시하여- 이 사건 처분을 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

B. In the instant case where the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition was lawfully made based on the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful by exceeding the discretionary power, by stating that “the Plaintiff’s disadvantage significantly infringed on the general public interest gained through the instant disposition is much excessive,” as the cause of the claim.

C. The criteria for the disposition to revoke driver's license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the "instant criteria for disposition") are merely internal handling guidelines of administrative agencies, and it is not externally binding on citizens or courts. Thus, the legality of the disposition to revoke driver's license pursuant to the instant criteria for disposition should not be determined by the instant criteria for disposition, but by the content and purport of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

In order to utilize it as the basic data for the revocation and suspension of driver's license, the term "spons points" as one of the disposition standards in this case refers to the points allocated according to the severity of the violation and the degree of damage, etc. of the violation of laws and regulations, and the criteria for disposition according to the calculation of such penalty points are only the discretionary standard for administrative affairs within the administrative agency.