1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 14, 2018, at around 22:30, the Plaintiff driven a e-car at approximately 3 km section from the C cafeteria parking lot in Chungcheong City B to the D Do parking lot in the same city, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.17%.

Accordingly, on July 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I ordinary) as of July 29, 2018 against the Plaintiff.

(2) The disposition of this case is unlawful in light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 11; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case; (d) the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, except for the violation of minor laws and regulations concerning drinking driving and recommendations made by the plaintiff for about 20 years; (b) the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation into drinking driving; (c) the plaintiff's vocational characteristics require the plaintiff's driver's license; (d) the plaintiff supports two children; (c) the plaintiff is living in good faith and exemplary life; and (d) the plaintiff faithfully and best lives; and (e) the plaintiff is against drinking driving.

Judgment

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000) by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200).