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 February 11, 2019, at around 23:05, the Plaintiff driven C’s vehicle c’s c’s c’s bage while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.124% on the front side of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant b’s c’).

B. On February 21, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) 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 March 18, 2019, but was dismissed on April 30, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 8, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in an investigation into drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that the driving distance is only 4 km, and the Plaintiff’s business trip is frequently conducted as an employee in charge of the pertinent business, and thus, the operation of the relevant vehicle is essential due to frequent business trip, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, 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 rules for administrative affairs, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and whether the pertinent disposition is legitimate or not.