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 September 30, 2018, at around 01:03, the Plaintiff driven a C low-speed car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.183%, while under the influence of alcohol, with a distance of about 1 km up to the front road of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) on the front road of the same Gu B.

B. On November 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class large driver’s license and first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was under influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

C. On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 8, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff obstructed the flow of the vehicle due to the pertinent drunk driving or did not cause any traffic accident.

The plaintiff has been using a proxy driving at the time of normal drinking, and only the driver was driving a motor vehicle to move to a place where he can easily find it difficult to explain his location at the time of this case.

At the time of this case, there is no late, and there was no person traveling around, so the danger of drinking driving was significantly low.

After detection of drunk driving, the Plaintiff actively cooperated and reflected in the investigation.

The plaintiff is engaged in the delivery of food materials, and the driver's license is essential to maintain his/her livelihood.

The plaintiff supports his/her family, and the change of his/her new occupation into another occupation has increased, and the recent director is also in a difficult economic situation.

Considering the above circumstances, the instant disposition was unlawful because it was an abuse of discretion.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the ground for the disposition.