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 August 12, 2017, at around 05:47, the Plaintiff driven CK3 vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.140% at the front route B in Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On August 23, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke 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 on September 4, 2017, but was dismissed on November 1, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, 5 or 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that on the day when the Plaintiff’s assertion was made to return to his country a substitute engineer after the Plaintiff’s ordinary drinking, he had been in direct operation of the heartcos on the premise that there was a considerable time to drink, not causing human and physical damage due to the driving of the instant drinking, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power, considering that there was a large number of external meetings on duties (representative of the D Company) and there were economic difficulties.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, 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 agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and therefore there is no effect to the public or court externally, and the relevant disposition is concerned.