1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff holding a Class I driver’s license, Class I driver’s license, and Class I driver’s license for large-scale vehicles, the Plaintiff, at around 00:19 on October 17, 2017, was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.178% in front of the ecological tunnel, where drinking water is fluored, and was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.178% on police officials.

B. On November 6, 2017, the Defendant notified the revocation of the Plaintiff’s respective driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on January 9, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1-3 evidence, Eul's 1-11 evidence, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s alleged workplace charges and drinking, but it was inevitable to drive as an agent, which did not cause an accident due to the instant driving, the use of an agent driving at ordinary times of drinking, the fact that he actively cooperatedd in the investigation, the head of a company who is unable to work without a driver’s license, the head of the family’s livelihood is suspended, and the revocation of a driver’s license is more unfavorable than that of the public interest to be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of the discretionary authority.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).