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 November 25, 2017, at around 03:07, the Plaintiff driven a CMW118d car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.14% at the frontway of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

B. On December 28, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice of revocation of the Class 2 ordinary vehicle driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on December 28, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.1%.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on May 1, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is a business employee and must visit several business partners a day, and the distance of commuting to and from work is essential to drive a motor vehicle. Considering the plaintiff's circumstances and various circumstances, such as the plaintiff's loss of livelihood because it is difficult to maintain the occupation due to the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is deemed to have been excessively harsh and abuse of discretion.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive 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 such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the 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 thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the legality of the disposition concerned is only the disposition criteria.