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

On March 18, 2018, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 01:40% of blood alcohol level, driven Category B Lone Star vehicle from the front of the lake, elementary school located in the Soyang-dong, Soyang-gu, Soyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, and up to the Pamp smart road located in 267.

Accordingly, on April 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on May 4, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 16, and the purport of the entire argument as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the traffic accident did not occur due to the plaintiff's assertion as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff is against the plaintiff and actively cooperate in the investigation into drinking driving, the plaintiff must take the child at the delivery date and the axis and the driver's license are necessary, and the plaintiff's license is revoked, it is difficult to maintain its livelihood, the disposition of this case is illegal to have been abused

Judgment

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000) by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200).