1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 03:00 on November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff driven C rocketing car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.104% under the influence of alcohol at the front of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On November 3, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) 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 December 6, 2016, but was dismissed on January 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 8, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was not high at the time of crackdown; (b) the Plaintiff did not have any record of regulating a drunk driving for the last twenty years; and (c) the Plaintiff was unable to drive a vehicle on duty, resulting in difficulties to his family’s livelihood; and (d) the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion.

B. Whether a punitive 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 the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, 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 thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not should be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above criteria