1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On September 7, 2018, at around 07:33, the Plaintiff driven a B K5-meter 40m section on the road in front of the Habdog Park in Yangju-si while under the influence of alcohol 0.136% of alcohol level.

Accordingly, on September 21, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on October 20, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

(2) In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, including Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, and 10; and (b) the overall purport of the oral argument, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is unlawful. The Plaintiff used a substitute driving in the event of a usual drinking alcohol; (c) the Plaintiff was forced to drive due to the use of the substitute driving at the time of the instant case; (d) there was no personal injury due to a drunk driving; and (e) cooperation with the police’s investigation; and (e) the Plaintiff, as a business employee, is performing the essential duties of a vehicle driving; and (e) there is difficulty in maintaining livelihood and supporting family support

Judgment

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000) by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200).