1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiff was given the penalty points of 100 days according to the suspension of driver’s license on the ground that he/she driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at around 0.082% of alcohol level around 23:50 on July 26, 2017.

However, the plaintiff on March 6, 2017 and the same year

5.8.8. and the same year;

6. On August 11, 2017, a driver’s license (class 1 and class 2 ordinary) was issued by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 11, 2017, as one of the 10 points imposed by 30 points each by 10 points for each designated vehicular traffic in violation of each designated lane.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is engaged in the Plaintiff’s occupation as a home-based engineer, and the Plaintiff’s income paid living expenses to the former and his children, and the loss of his driver’s license would result in difficulties in supporting the family, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an 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 the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, even if the criteria for disciplinary administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial 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. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not must be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above disposition criteria,

(2) The disposition is legitimate.