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 December 8, 2019, at around 02:10, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.094% at the front of the Jinjin-si, B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On December 27, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (the Plaintiff’s license for large vehicles No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2) 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, but was dismissed on March 10, 2020.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul No. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 이 사건 음주운전 이후 음주운전 조사에 적극적으로 협력하였던 점, 교통흐름을 방해하거나 인적, 물적 피해가 발생하지 않은 점, 당시 50m 정도 이동주차한 뒤 추위 때문에 시동을 켠 채 잠을 자다가 음주단속에 적발된 것으로 음주운전 거리도 50m 정도에 불과한 점, 원고는 고철 집게차 기사로 근무하고 있어 차량운행이 필수적인 점, 경제적 어려움을 겪고 있고, 부양해야 할 가족이 있는 점 등 제반사정을 고려하여 볼 때, 이 사건 처분은 재량권의 범위를 벗어나거나 재량권을 남용한 것이다.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive 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 such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are provided in the form of Ministerial Ordinance.