1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff, holding a Class I ordinary driver’s license, was driving B vehicles up to 76 annual intersections with the same high-tech in front of the secondary apartment located in the Gan apartment zone in Gwangju Northern-gu, Seoul, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.130% of alcohol level, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level.

B. On July 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on July 27, 2017, but the claim was dismissed on September 5, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion 14 years of non-accident driving experience, human and material damage did not occur, that is, the time of drunk driving, that is, the loss of drinking, that is, the operation of the vehicle, that makes it difficult to maintain livelihood because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to perform his/her duties if he/she is unable to drive his/her vehicle for the supply of materials, such as delivery in and out of the city, delivery in and out of the city, and the nuclear transport, etc., and that economic circumstances are difficult due to the large amount of obligations, etc., the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that may be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was deviates

(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’s 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 the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).