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 October 24, 2017, around 23:32, 2017, the Plaintiff driven C low-speed car volume while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.179% on the front of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On November 16, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking 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 December 12, 2017, but was dismissed on January 23, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, and Eul 1, 2, 6 or 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause human and physical damage due to the pertinent drunk driving, that the Plaintiff was driving without an accident for 12 years, and that the Plaintiff is engaged in the Internet opening service, and that the Plaintiff is in need of the operation of a vehicle on duty, so the revocation of the driver’s license is impossible to perform his/her duties when the driver’s license is revoked, and that the instant disposition is an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, 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 affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the relevant disposition is legitimate.