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 August 13, 2019, around 03:50 on August 13, 2019, the Plaintiff driven Chanland flue vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.127% on the front side of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On September 9, 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 September 2, 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’s assertion was unlawful in light of all circumstances, including the following: (a) the Plaintiff cooperates in the enforcement procedure after driving under the influence of alcohol in this case; (b) the driving distance does not cause physical damage; (c) the driving distance is merely 500 meters; (d) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary to operate his business as an operator of human film film films; and (e) the Plaintiff has a means of living, having economic difficulties; and (e) there are family members to support.

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 it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the relevant disposition is legitimate.