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 September 1, 2017, at around 00:26, the Plaintiff driven a B cart two-wheeled vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.131% under the influence of alcohol level on the front side of 248 Sambu apartment-ro, Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

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

On September 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on November 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) there was no occurrence of a traffic accident causing human and physical damage due to the Plaintiff’s assertion of alcohol driving; (b) the Plaintiff has been exemplary driving without traffic accidents or influence of drinking for twenty (20) years; and (c) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to carry out his/her duties and support his/her family; and (d) the instant disposition is unlawful

B. Whether a punitive 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 suffered by an individual due to the relevant disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed within the administrative agency’s internal business affairs rules, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether it is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with the above criteria but also in accordance