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 July 31, 2017, at around 22:37, the Plaintiff driven B 130 cars while under the influence of alcohol level B 0.181% while under the influence of alcohol at the front of the entrance of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1-1 Gayang-dong. (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) 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 September 8, 2017, but was dismissed on October 17, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 or 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s drinking driving did not cause personal injury or injury, the operation of the vehicle is essential due to the nature of the business (on-site management), and the instant disposition causes difficulties in the livelihood of the Plaintiff and his family, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of the discretion or abused discretionary power.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion 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 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 affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not is in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above criteria