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

A. On September 19, 2017, at around 00:30, the Plaintiff driven BMW car volume under the influence of 0.121% alcohol concentration on the road in front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yangcheon-ro 731 (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On October 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on October 25, 2017, but was dismissed on December 12, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s argument held that he was unable to contact with the substitute engineer due to the absence of contact with the substitute engineer during the search process, the instant disposition was beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary authority. In light of the following: (a) the driving of the instant drinking vehicle did not cause personal injury due to the instant drinking driving; (b) the operation of the vehicle is essential due to the characteristics of the relevant local business trip; and (c) the Plaintiff experienced economic difficulties, the instant disposition was an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, even if the standard of punitive administrative disposition is prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that of the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and therefore there is no effect to guarantee the people or the court externally.