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

A. On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, holding a Class I ordinary driver’s license, driven a C-car in approximately 500 meters section from the 50-meter-based Roju apartment complex in Gwangju Mine-gu to about 0.115% alcohol level, while under the influence of alcohol level around 00:38.

B. On April 3, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license on the ground of the above drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on July 4, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 9 evidence, Eul's 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the driving distance on the lawfulness of the instant disposition is not clear, that the person in charge of the business has been driving contingently, that is against the fact that the person in charge of the business has been employed and has been frequently visiting the trading company, the fact that the driver’s license is essential due to frequent business trips, and that the person must support his family, etc., the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that is to be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, as well as all relevant circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or law, or are the reason for the disciplinary administrative disposition