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 April 22, 2017, at around 01:34, the Plaintiff driven a BS car owned by the Plaintiff while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.172% of blood alcohol level on the front of the CY 202 CY, Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on July 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause an accident for about 17 years and was driving without causing physical damage due to the drinking driving of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary to maintain his livelihood, and the Plaintiff uses a flat driving for the purpose of maintaining his livelihood, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

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 public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant 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 within the administrative agency’s internal business affairs rules, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether it is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with the above criteria but also in accordance