1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On June 22, 2019, at around 23:30, the Plaintiff, holding a Class I ordinary driver’s license, caused an accident of shocking the road smoke while driving a vehicle with a low alcohol level of 0.201% under the influence of alcohol in front of the B apartment route in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, with a alcohol level of 0.201%.

B. On July 10, 2019, the Defendant notified the revocation of the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On July 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling of dismissal on September 10, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 11, Eul 1 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On the day of the Plaintiff’s assertion, taking full account of the following: (a) the representative of the business partners and the entire employees and the head of the agency, even though the substitute driver was forced to operate without any error; (b) the mere drinking driver was involved in the investigation; (c) active cooperation was made in the investigation; (d) the driver’s license is absolutely necessary because he is engaged in the event industry that is difficult to use public transportation compared to the heavy moving in business characteristics; and (e) when the driver’s license is revoked, it is difficult to support the old parents and their families, the instant disposition was abused or abused

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).