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 September 27, 2017, at around 06:10, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle with Cromatic alcohol level of 0.146% while under the influence of alcohol at the front of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On October 17, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) 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 October 25, 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 or 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion that a considerable time has elapsed after drinking alcohol, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion, or abused discretion, considering the following: (a) not causing human and physical damage due to the instant drinking driving; (b) not causing the instant driving; (c) vehicle operation is essential; (d) having economic difficulties; and (e) going forward marriage.

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 such cases, 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, and the legality of the disposition concerned is only the disposition criteria.