1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 13, 2017, at around 22:11, the Plaintiff driven a BNS car with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.177% on the front of the Livestock Cooperative located in 833, as stated above, on the roads before the Livestock Cooperative, which is located in 763, as the same on the roads before the Livestock Cooperative.

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

On July 21, 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 filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on or around September 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been driving without drinking alcohol for about 32 years; (b) there was no personal or physical damage caused by the instant drunk driving; and (c) the Plaintiff’s license is essential, etc., the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion; and even if it is not revoked, it should be changed to the suspension order for 110 days for the instant driver’s license.

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 on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all 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 business rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court