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 January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff was given penalty points of 25 points due to the breach of duty of safe driving by causing a traffic accident accompanied by personal injury within the jurisdiction of the leisure Police Station.

B. On August 11, 2017, the Plaintiff is driving a passenger car at the front of the Haki Park Young-do, Busan, under the state of blood alcohol concentration of 0.068% in front of the Hakido Park Young-dong.

As a result of detection, penalty points have been imposed 100 points.

C. On September 5, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the annual accumulated acid score exceeds the revocation criteria (1.121 points).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on October 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful since it abused and abused discretion, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s remaining drinking softs remain at the new wall after drinking, the Plaintiff’s duties and the need for a driver’s license to maintain livelihood, and the Plaintiff’s family form is difficult.

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 the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the 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 business rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective to the public or court externally