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 19, 2017, at around 15:10, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.122% of alcohol level in the direction of the 104-dong 104-dong Gaak apartment with a 32-lane 16 ahead of the Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu.

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

On September 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) 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 November 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff has been engaged in exemplary driving for 23 years without any accident or the influence of alcohol driving; (b) the Plaintiff is not under the influence of alcohol driving; and (c) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to perform his/her duties and support his/her family members.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion 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 relevant disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant 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 agency’s internal business affairs rules, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether it is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with the above criteria