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 7, 2018, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff driven a B low-speed car with approximately 5 km from the Seocho-gu Seoul Southerndong to the vicinity of the shooting distance in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.123%.

B. On January 14, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 19, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 11, 15, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not drive under the influence of alcohol prior to this day.

The plaintiff is working as a tree in the construction site. Since the driver's license is essential for performing his/her duties due to the characteristics of his/her occupation, if the driver's license is revoked, he/she shall retire from office at present

The family of the plaintiff is a large couple and the plaintiff's income, and there is a very difficult economic situation.

Considering the above circumstances, the instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1 Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms 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 disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances.

In such cases, the criteria for sanctions shall be the same.