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 August 22, 2017, at around 00:05, the Plaintiff driven B Abro-te in a state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.249% at the front of the 120-lane Goyang-dong Goyang-dong Goyang-dong, Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On September 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 22, 2017, but was dismissed on November 29, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was made to operate a scar on the day he returned home with his substitute engineer after the Plaintiff’s ordinary drinking, the fact that the operation of the vehicle is essential due to a large number of local business trips on the work (service of the business department) and is suffering from economic difficulties, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not shall be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, as well as