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 March 30, 2019, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff driven Chopba golf car volume with a level of 0.124% alcohol level on the front side of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant driving”).

B. On April 16, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, 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 April 30, 2019, but was dismissed on June 4, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 8, 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 drinking driving after the drinking driving of this case, and the driving distance is only 30 meters, and the plaintiff served as a criminal in Taekwondo painting, and considering all circumstances, such as the operation of a vehicle on duty is essential for the plaintiff's personnel, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, the disposition of this case is beyond the scope of discretionary authority or abuse discretionary authority.

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 standard of punitive administrative disposition is provided in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that of the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and thereby externally binding citizens or courts.