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 20, 2020, at around 22:35, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.034% on the street in front of the Nam-gu Incheon Nam-gu Seo-gu, Incheon, and suffered injury to three victims by receiving the rear part of the fexton vehicle that was in the present signal atmosphere.

B. On March 20, 2020, the Defendant decided to revoke the first-class ordinary driver's license by applying Article 93 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident with three regular drivers while driving under the influence of alcohol as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 20, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 16, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s alleged occupation (import vehicle sales employees) requires absolute driver’s license due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s alleged occupation, and the economic situation is very difficult, the instant disposition was in violation of the law that deviates from and abused the discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the instant disposition.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2000Du11779, if the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with