1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 6, 2017, at around 22:50, the Plaintiff received 110 points with the mark of violation of alcohol level (0.078% of blood alcohol level) and method of changing course.

On June 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was given a mark of 30 points due to the violation of the exclusive bus on expressway.

B. On June 30, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground that the Plaintiff exceeded the base point of 140 points per year (121 points) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 4, 2017, but was dismissed on August 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s operation of a vehicle on the business (transport of building equipment) is necessarily required, and the instant disposition causes difficulties in livelihood of the principal and his family members (spouse and children). The instant disposition is deemed to have exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power 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 the relevant circumstances.

In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and therefore there is no effect to the public or court externally, and the relevant disposition is concerned.