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 June 7, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.172% alcohol level around 21:34.

B. Accordingly, on July 13, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(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 October 1, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no damage caused by the instant drunk driving, and the distance of movement is relatively short of 300 meters, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff has been doing exemplary driving without traffic accidents, drunk driving or traffic offense for about 20 years, used a normal agency driving, made a confession, etc., and actively cooperates in the detection matters, such as confession, etc., it is absolutely necessary for the establishment and maintenance of the manufacturing equipment system as a company, and family support, maintenance of livelihood, debt repayment difficulties, delivery of ordinary contributions, and pre-payment, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful since it is much more unfavorable for the Plaintiff, which is contrary to the public interest to achieve the pertinent disposition, and thus, constitutes an abuse of 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 on 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 to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200).