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 January 4, 2019, at around 01:30, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle with Cromatic alcohol level of 0.181% under the influence of alcohol on the front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On February 12, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 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 February 26, 2019, but was dismissed on April 2, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 5 through 9, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have exceeded the scope of discretionary power or abused discretionary power due to frequent appearance of the company members in charge of distribution and business, such as the operation of occupational vehicles, economic difficulties, and family members to support.

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 administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above criteria for disposition, but also the related statutes