1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. Around 22:30 on June 10, 2017, the Plaintiff, holding a Class I ordinary driver’s license, was driving his/her B vehicle on the roads after He/she was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.158% on the roads of He/she was under the influence of He/she.

B. On July 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license on the ground of the above drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on July 24, 2017, but the claim was dismissed on September 12, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged drunk driving is running, heavy equipment driving is running, and the fact that the principal performance of duties would be impossible if the Plaintiff is unable to drive a vehicle due to a large number of new walls, and that it is difficult to support his family members, and that economic circumstances are difficult, the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that would be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determinations as to whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the act of disposition in question, and all relevant circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or law, or are in line with the above disposition standards, and the relevant statutes and regulations