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

On July 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.197% of blood alcohol level around 21:30, driven B motor vehicle from the his/her personal identity Dong in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu to the intersection in front of the White Park in the same Gu Seoyang-dong.

Accordingly, on August 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 13, 2017.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's livelihood and activity, the plaintiff's circumstances of drinking driving, the plaintiff's reflects the plaintiff's drinking operation, the plaintiff has complied with laws and regulations for a long time, and has served for the ordinary society, etc., the disposition of this case was unlawful since it exceeded and abused discretion.

Judgment

Whether a disciplinary 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 that an individual would have suffered by the disposition, by objectively examining the substance of the offense, which is the grounds for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances leading to such disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200). If a disposition standard is prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standard itself does not conform with the Constitution or laws, or if there is no reasonable ground to believe that the administrative disposition is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the offense, which constitutes the grounds for the disposition, and the content and purport of the relevant statutes, the disposition shall not be readily determined that the disposition has deviates from the scope of discretion or has abused discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6946, Sept. 20, 207).