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

A. On May 22, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at around 22:55, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.182%.

B. Accordingly, on June 10, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on August 13, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that there is no personal injury caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case, the distance of movement to 2.5km is relatively short, that is used as a usual proxy driving, that is, the confessions and reflects, etc., and that the driver’s license is absolutely absolutely necessary under the business (such as supply and operation by the manufacturing company) and that there is difficulty in maintaining the livelihood, family support, and debt repayment when the driver’s license is revoked, etc., the disposition of this case is much more unfavorable than that of the Plaintiff’s general public interest gained through the disposition of this case, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing its discretionary authority.

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all relevant circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or Act