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 April 20, 2019, at around 22:10, the Plaintiff: (a) driven C-II car volume with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.119% on the front of the Seopopopo City B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On May 1, 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 May 8, 2019, but was dismissed on July 9, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 6 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 cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and the driving distance is only 300 meters, the Plaintiff’s self-employed business operator engaged in the goods delivery business, and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary authority.

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 such cases, 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 affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective to externally bind citizens or courts, and whether such disposition is legitimate or not is not related to the above criteria for disposition.