1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the issue

가. 원고가 2018. 1. 31.과 2019. 1. 23. 거듭 술에 취한 상태에서 자동차를 운전하다가 적발되어 각각 벌점 100점씩을 받은 사실 등에 기초하여, 피고가 2019. 2. 15. 원고에게 -별지(☞ 을 1)에 나오는 바와 같이- 두 종류의 운전면허(제1종 대형보통)를 일괄적으로 취소하는 이 사건 처분을 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

B. In the instant case where the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition was lawfully made based on the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful by exceeding the discretionary power, by stating that “the Plaintiff’s disadvantage significantly infringed on the general public interest gained through the instant disposition is much excessive,” as the cause of the claim.

C. The criteria for the disposition to revoke driver's license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the "instant criteria for disposition") are merely internal handling guidelines of administrative agencies, and it is not externally binding on citizens or courts. Thus, the legality of the disposition to revoke driver's license pursuant to the instant criteria for disposition should not be determined by the instant criteria for disposition, but by the content and purport of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

The term "presidential point" as one of the disposition standards in this case refers to the point allocated according to the severity of the violation, degree of damage, etc. in order to utilize it as the basic data for the cancellation and suspension of driver's license, and the criteria for disposition according to the calculation of the penalty points are discretionary rules concerning administrative affairs within the administrative agency, not legal effects.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20236, Mar. 27, 1998). Meanwhile, the revocation of a driver’s license under Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act is a discretionary act, and thus, the instant case is concerned.