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 May 12, 2018, at around 22:45, the Plaintiff driven B K5 cars while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.288% in the GuroIC located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On May 30, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the Class 1 ordinary vehicle driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on May 30, 2018, 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 July 17, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the Plaintiff’s circumstances and various circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s work as a pharmaceutical company’s member and the Plaintiff’s work performance is essential, and thus, it is difficult to maintain the occupation by the instant disposition. The instant disposition 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 this case, 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. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not is in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above criteria