1. A driver’s license (Class I, Class II, and Class II) granted to the Plaintiff on July 7, 2016 by the Defendant.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff holding Class 1 large and ordinary, and Class 2 small driver’s licenses was driving the Daba (250CC) at a section of about 50 meters in front of the parking lot of the Dabari (250CC) on the roads in front of the Daba, under the influence of alcohol level of 0.118% under the influence of alcohol level around 22:18.

B. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s entire driver’s license on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on August 23, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1-11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s work as a local driving assistant in the D-si local driving assistant is inevitable to be dismissed from the local public official if the driver’s license is revoked, and thus, the Plaintiff’s livelihood is likely to be harmed by his family, and thus, the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that may be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, it is abuse

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all relevant circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).