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

A. On July 3, 2017, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s license to drive a vehicle as stated in the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol at around 16:30 on June 11, 2017,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.133%.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition, which did not take into account the fact that a person engaged in the business of transporting and installing electronic equipment is de facto subject to revocation of his/her driver’s license, is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be determined 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 a ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for a punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal business rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court, and the determination of the legality of the disposition must be made in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant laws

Although the disposition can not be said to be legitimate, the disposition is not in itself consistent with the Constitution or the law, or sanctions are imposed in accordance with the above disposition standard.