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 16, 2017, at around 08:38, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.073% alcohol level.

B. Accordingly, on October 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition of a driver’s license (Class I ordinary) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged drunk driving did not cause human and physical injury, and the blood alcohol concentration is relatively minor, and the Plaintiff, as an individual entrepreneur, would have to retire from work when the driver’s license is revoked, and would have experienced difficulties in supporting family, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse discretion.

B. 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 the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, even if the criteria for disciplinary administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not must be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above disposition criteria,

Therefore, the disposition can not be said to be legitimate, but the above disposition disposition does not conform with the Constitution or the law itself, or a punitive administrative disposition according to the above disposition disposition becomes the ground for the disposition.