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 4, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.12% alcohol level around 01:23.

B. Accordingly, on October 17, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (Class II ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on December 17, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving, the distance of movement is relatively short of 4 km, the fact that the model driving has been conducted for five years without traffic accidents or the influence of alcohol driving, the use of ordinary driving by proxy, the confession, etc., and the fact that the driver’s license is absolutely absolutely necessary to ensure the convenience of commuting to and from work, and the revocation of the driver’s license is difficult to be re-employed as a foreigner’s status, and there is difficulty in maintaining livelihood and supporting family, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it exceeds the disadvantage of the Plaintiff against the public interest to be achieved, and thus it is against the law of abuse of discretionary authority.

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not consistent with the Constitution or law, or are related to the violation for which a punitive administrative disposition