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 11, 2017, the Plaintiff, as of September 22:58, 2017, was driving the 101-laned vehicle volume B while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.136% on the road front of the so-called 101-gild market located in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking 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, but was dismissed on December 22, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1, 5 or 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that he had been driving without the traffic accident or the influence of drunk driving for 9 years; (b) the Plaintiff did not cause personal or physical damage due to the pertinent drunk driving; and (c) the Plaintiff’s operation of the vehicle is essential and economic difficulties due to its employee, etc., 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 thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the legality of the disposition concerned is only the disposition criteria.