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 14, 2019, at around 00:40, the Plaintiff driven the C-learning Motor Vehicle Quantities under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.163% on the front of the Busan-si B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On July 17, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 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 July 24, 2019, but was dismissed on September 3, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 4 through 6, 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 that the driving distance is only 100 meters, the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation is essential for commuting to and from work to its members, and there are family members who need to support. In light of all circumstances, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion, or abused 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.