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 July 11, 2019, at around 02:25, the Plaintiff driven Cwork of Lystrento under the influence of alcohol level of 0.159% on the front of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On July 26, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) 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 August 19, 2019, but was dismissed on October 1, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 5 through 8, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that there was no personal injury, and considering all circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff is essential to operate a motor vehicle as an employee in charge of the sales of the motor vehicle parts, having economic difficulties, and having family members to support, 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 such cases, 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 affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the legality of the disposition concerned is only the disposition criteria.