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 19, 2017, at around 01:21, the Plaintiff driven a B B B B B B B B B Blue vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.129% on the front of Clue apartment, a Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On August 2, 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 dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 30, 2017, but was dismissed on October 24, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 21 evidence, Eul 1, 4 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause personal injury due to drinking alcohol driving in this case, the Plaintiff’s work as an operator in the relevant press organization, and the Plaintiff’s work as an employee is essential to operate a vehicle on duty, and thus, the status of dismissal from the company when the driver’s license is revoked, and economic difficulties are experienced, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of 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 such cases, 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, and the relevant disposition is legitimate.