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 April 13, 2017, at around 23:45, the Plaintiff driven a CK3 car owned by the Plaintiff while under the influence of alcohol with 0.102% alcohol level around Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On April 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large, class 1 ordinary, and class 1 large dogs) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on September 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 29, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff used a substitute driver on the day of the instant case to drive approximately 20 meters in front of the house to park. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to conduct his/her duties, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal administrative affairs rules of the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether the disposition is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with

(2) The disposition is legitimate.