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

A. On September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff was placed with 30 points as an “violation of traffic classification” while driving a vehicle on the part of September 13, 2018.

B. On October 26, 2018, at around 01:31, the Plaintiff driven the BMW car owned by himself while under the influence of alcohol of 0.074%, and 1 km from the front of the BM car in front of the projected commercial building near the Seo-dong, Seonam-gu, Sungnam-si, which is located in the same Gu C to the front of the DM meeting located in the same Gu C.

C. The defendant Na

The above is given 100 points for driving under the influence of alcohol.

On November 9, 2018, the first-class ordinary driver's license was revoked (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") on the ground that the total score of the driver's license was at least 121 points for one year, which is the criteria for cancellation of driver's license.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 8, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that no personal or material damage has occurred due to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving, the Plaintiff’s resistance and again is expected not to drive alcohol again, and the Plaintiff is able to drive at an average of 100km per day while in charge of alcoholic beverage delivery and business, and 1 and 2 times a week are delivered even before the ordinary level and even before the license is revoked, and thus, the instant disposition is in the position where the license is revoked, making it impossible to perform his/her duties and it is necessary to terminate his/her duties. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing the discretion.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is determined by the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition and the relevant disposition.