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 29, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on December 29, 2015. On December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident where the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle for riding on the horse side D while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.121% (hereinafter “driving on the instant drinking”), while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.121% on the street in the city of ethical C on December 11, 2018, while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.121% on the center line, while driving the vehicle in the direction opposite to the center line, caused the victim’s E-driving truck’s front right side part of the vehicle under the influence of e

B. On January 19, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 5, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has been using a usual driving and tried to use a substitute driving even before the pertinent drunk driving. The possibility and risk of criticism for the pertinent drunk driving was significantly low, the plaintiff has been operating a model for five years, the plaintiff's driver's license is essential not only for the performance of duties as a member of the business team, but also for future job seeking, and the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects with the investigative agency in relation to the instant drunk driving, the plaintiff is paying 120,000 won each month in accordance with the individual rehabilitation procedure, and his mother is required to bear the public rental apartment fund together with his mother. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary power and abuse of discretionary power.

B. The scope of discretionary power is determined by social norms.