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 15, 2019, at around 00:00, the Plaintiff driven CPoter III cargo vehicles with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.127% while under the influence of alcohol on the roads near Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On June 24, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, and class 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 on July 12, 2019, but was dismissed on September 10, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 7, 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 3 km, the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation is essential for the distribution business to deliver goods to its employees, economic difficulties, and family members to support the goods. The instant disposition was abused by exceeding the scope of discretion, or by abusing 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 has no effect to guarantee citizens or courts externally.