1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around 00:09 on January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a B-hand car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.136% at an underground vehicle of the Gu pan-type city in Ansan-si.

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

On February 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 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 April 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 13 evidence, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been driving due to an accident for about nine years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license. The Plaintiff always used the substitute driver’s license before driving the instant drinking, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff supports her parents and is preparing for marriage in November of this year. In light of the above, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority.

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 relevant 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 agency’s internal business affairs rules, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether it is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with the above criteria