1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff holding Class 1, Class 1, Class 2, and Class 2 driver’s licenses was driving B vehicles from the roads front of the Gwangju-gu 4-1 Namju City Mayor No. 17-1, to the roads front of the head office of the Gwangju Dong-gu 225 Gwangju Bank, under the influence of alcohol level of 0.15% of alcohol level around 22:30 on April 26, 2017.

B. On May 23, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class I large, Class I ordinary, and Class II small drivers’ licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on June 19, 2017, but the claim was dismissed on August 31, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an accident-free driving experience for eight years, the personal and material damage did not occur, the time of drunk driving, the fact that the license is recognized, the job-seeking cannot be conducted when the license is revoked, and the livelihood is difficult, etc., the instant disposition is more unfavorable than that of the public interest to be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determinations as to whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals 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 all the relevant circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; where the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or