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 October 27, 2018, at around 09:45, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.058% on the front side of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and was under the influence of C rocketing car, and was under the influence of police officers.

B. On October 27, 2018, the Defendant imposed 100 points to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the above duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, which constitutes the ground for suspension of license, added 30 points to the Plaintiff’s given points that the Plaintiff was imposed as a violation of the traffic classification on October 27, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on November 5, 2018 pursuant to Article 93(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s given points that the base point of revocation of the driver’s license was not less than 121 points per year (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on December 4, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 4, 6, Eul 2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Plaintiff without the record of driving under the influence of alcohol prior to the instant case or the violation of traffic regulations, and the Plaintiff’s wife suffers from a light signboard disability and thus requires pain treatment and is waiting for childbirth. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s support is necessary, the Plaintiff did not incur human and physical damage due to drinking driving of the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s business employee requires the operation of his/her vehicle for his/her duties. In light of all circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful by exceeding the scope of discretion due to excessive suspicion, or by abusing discretionary power.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power is relevant to the violation as a ground for the disposition.