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 July 27, 2019, at around 14:54, the Plaintiff driven Cone Star Cornex’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.217% on the front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On August 22, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (large-type 1, first-class ordinary, salvage, second-class, and second-class motorcycles) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 11, 2019, but was dismissed on October 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 11, Eul's 7 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause personal injury or injury due to the drunk driving of the instant case; the Plaintiff’s operation of an occupational vehicle is essential to the employee in charge of delivery business; and the Plaintiff suffered economic difficulties, such as repayment of debts through individual rehabilitation procedures, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of the discretion or abuse of discretionary power.

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 criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal rules for administrative affairs of administrative agencies, and it is an external citizen or court.