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 July 28, 2018, at around 00:20, the Plaintiff driven CK3 car under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.156%, while under the influence of alcohol on the roads near YY-gu in Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

B. On August 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a notice of revocation of the first-class ordinary vehicle driver’s license and the second-class motorcycle driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol more than 0.1% of the blood alcohol level based on the revocation of license.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 10, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1, 5 or 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is a production-management position of the automobile parts manufacturer, and is in need of driving a motor vehicle due to the characteristics of the business trip. Considering various circumstances, such as making it difficult to maintain his/her livelihood with the instant disposition, the Plaintiff abused discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. Determination 1 as to 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 public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the 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 it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not is in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above criteria