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

A. On March 21, 2020, the Plaintiff driven a B vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.109% in the blood alcohol level on the road front of the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Eco-ro at the center of Namdong-gu, Incheon, and discovered it to police officers.

B. On May 15, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary driver's license by applying Article 93 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol as above (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

On August 11, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed on October 6, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that there is no injury caused by the Plaintiff’s alleged drinking driving of the Plaintiff, the distance driven by the Plaintiff is relatively short, the police officer actively cooperated in the investigation into the police officer, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for job-seeking activities, and the Plaintiff must support his family, the instant disposition is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused discretion by excessively harsh treatment to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the instant disposition.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

(c)

However, whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power in light of social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual by objectively examining the content of the act of inducing the disposition in question, the public interest achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of Ministries, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or Act, or a punitive administrative disposition is in accordance with the above disposition standards.