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 June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) while under the influence of alcohol with blood alcohol level of 0.173% from the distance of a new engineer as at the time of Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”). (b) around 00:47, the Plaintiff driven the racing car level of B while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.173%.

B. On July 12, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary and motor-driven vehicles) 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 19, 2017, but was dismissed on August 7, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 13 evidence, Eul's 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① did not cause personal injury due to the drinking driving of the instant case, ② the Plaintiff’s driving of the vehicle is essential for the Plaintiff’s livelihood business (the distribution business is engaged in the distribution business and the delivery of customers, etc.). Therefore, in light of the fact that the instant disposition became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff and his family members’ livelihood (the Plaintiff’s parents should be supported by the Plaintiff’s neglect, and their lives are directed), the instant disposition was beyond the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.

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 agency's internal administrative rules.