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 November 22, 2016, at around 06:58, the Plaintiff driven a B large-scale van while under the influence of alcohol with 0.104% alcohol level at the front of the Seodaemun-dong Elementary School in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

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

On November 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (large-sized vehicles No. 1, Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, and Class 1) (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 23, 2017, but was dismissed on February 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 8, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff considered that there was no problem in the operation of the vehicle since the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol prior to the instant drunk driving, and was under the influence of sufficient waters or rest; (b) that there was no special injury to the human and physical damage due to the instant drunk driving; (c) that the Plaintiff, as a chartered driver, is making it available for various difficulties when he was unable to drive while he was under the influence of driving; and (d) that there was no record of regulating a drunk driving for the last ten years, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretionary authority or abused discretionary authority.

B. 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 the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In such cases, the criteria for sanctions shall be the same.