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 May 17, 2019, at around 00:28, the Plaintiff driven C rocketing car volume while under the influence of alcohol by 0.150% at the front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On May 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) 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 June 28, 2019, but was dismissed on August 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 6 through 8 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that there was no personal injury, and the Plaintiff’s business trip is frequently conducted by a consulting company as a member of the company working at the consulting company, and thus, the operation of the business vehicle is essential, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.

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.