1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 08:20 on December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff, while driving a B-L-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-on vehicle on the road in Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, 437, in violation of the duty of safe driving, caused a traffic accident (personal damage: 2 at ordinary times, physical damage; hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as measures to rescue the casualties.

B. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (Class II common) of a motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on March 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is very minor that the damage to the victim of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff has been exemplary driving for seven years since its acquisition of the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff is working at the removal specialized company, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing its 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 of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the relevant 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 administrative agency’s internal business affairs rules, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court, and the legality of the relevant disposition shall not be limited to