1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff holding a Class I driver’s license for large vehicles and Class I driver’s license for ordinary vehicles was under the influence of alcohol 0.152% in front of the 67 distribution middle school by new distribution, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.152% in front of the 67th distribution middle school, and was under the control of police officials.

B. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant notified the revocation of the Plaintiff’s respective driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on January 16, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion Hand failure caused the driver’s driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle without accident for five years after the acquisition of the driver’s license; (b) the driver used the driver’s license as an agent for ordinary drinking; (c) actively cooperated in the investigation; (d) the driver’s license should be cancelled when the driver’s license is cancelled; (e) the driver’s license should be discontinued if the driver’s license is canceled; and (e) the parent, in particular, cannot look at his or her parents and other family members; and (e) the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that would have been affected by the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is erroneous in law that deviates from and abused the discretion.

(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 by social norms ought to 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 violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).