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 August 2, 2017, at around 00:47, the Plaintiff driven a BNS car in the influence of alcohol level of 0.154% at the front of the exit route No. 5 line No. 7 of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gayang-dong 968 Goyang-dong, with a blood alcohol level of 0.154% (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On August 23, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, and class 2) 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 September 7, 2017, but was dismissed on October 17, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was made to operate a substitute engineer directly in the heart on the day he returned home, that it did not cause human and physical damage due to the driving of the instant drinking, that the operation of the instant vehicle is essential due to a large number of local business trips (transport of equipment) and that the instant disposition was suffering from economic difficulties, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of the discretion or abuse of discretionary authority.

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 it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the relevant disposition is legitimate.