1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. At around 23:52 on March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff, a Class 1 large and ordinary driver’s license, driven a D car on the front side of C in the under the influence of alcohol 0.150% under the influence of alcohol.

B. On May 9, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first class large and ordinary driving license on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on July 14, 2016, but was dismissed on September 30, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff moved a 13-month 13-month alle vehicle to facilitate the search of a substitute driver, and was discovered in the control. The plaintiff was dismissed as a driver in technical service in the National Fisheries Quarantine Station affiliated with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and he was dismissed as a driver in technical service in the instant case for several years, he is not able to be appointed as another public official in good faith, and he is against the disposition in this case. In full view of the above, the disposition in this case is more unfavorable than the public interest to be gained due to the disposition in this case, and thus, the disposition in this case is deviating from and abusing discretion.

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

C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition 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 the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministries,