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 24, 2016, at around 23:06, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.131% at front of Asan-si Handong High School.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On October 11, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large, ordinary, and class 2 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on December 13, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 22, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle to move the vehicle to another place in order to avoid a garment with the restaurant where the vehicle was parked; and (b) the distance of the vehicle was about 50 meters; (c) the Plaintiff was engaged in his occupation as a driving engineer transporting aggregate; and (d) the Plaintiff had no record of drinking driving for 23 years after obtaining a license, etc.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be 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 affairs rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective to the public or the court externally, and whether the disposition is legitimate is not only