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 October 30, 2002, the Plaintiff was a person who obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on October 30, 2002. On October 8, 2015, at around 04:28, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.120% on October 8, 2015, and was under the influence of CK5 motor vehicles on

B. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (the revocation period from November 19, 2015 to November 18, 2016; the following disposition was taken) with respect to driving under the influence of alcohol as stated in the preceding paragraph.

C. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a trial seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was issued on December 8, 2015.

The above 1.A

A summary order was issued to sentence a fine of KRW 4 million as Seoul Southern District Court 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 1541, which became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had drinking alcohol on the day of driving and sent a substitute engineer on around 02:19, but did not assign an article, and even if there was a resident's resistance, the Plaintiff moved about about 10 meters of the vehicle to a place where it remains well in snow on the ground that there was a resident's resistance as the relation of parking the vehicle in the Dtel parking lot.

Since the locking in the vehicle has been discovered as a drunk driving at around 04:28, there are circumstances that can be considered in the circumstances of the drunk driving, and the plaintiff's work as a business employee of the company and the driver's license is essential, so it is faced with the situation of dismissal in the workplace due to the disposition of this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is a disposition that is considerably larger than that of the public interest to be achieved by it and is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused discretionary power.

B. (1) Whether the punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the reason for the disposition.