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 20, 2017, at around 23:48, the Plaintiff driven a car under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.101% on the front of the new-dong apartment, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 312.

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

On October 27, 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 January 9, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is 0.101% of the Plaintiff’s best driving for 10 years without the influence of alcohol or traffic accidents, and the blood alcohol concentration of the instant drinking driving merely exceeds 0.001%. Considering the mechanical error, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff constitutes the cancellation value of the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to carry out his/her duties and support his/her parents. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

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 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 business rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court,