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 June 8, 2017, around 00:30 on June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles with blood alcohol concentration of 0.143% at the front of the modern apartment complex 582 modern apartment complex.

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

On June 29, 2017, 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 filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on August 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 21, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion without a vehicle is unable to perform his/her principal duties, which is a situation where the Plaintiff should retire from his/her office, and that he/she must gather money to seek a house together with his/her mother-child to support his/her family, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power 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 disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of 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 in the internal administrative affairs rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether the disposition is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with

(2) The disposition is legitimate.