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 August 1, 2019, at around 20:35, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at least 0.212% of blood alcohol level, was driving at a level of 500 meters from the front day of the “D” restaurant in Ansan-si, to the front road of the E building, and caused an accident where each left side of the two automobiles parked there was a shock on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. On August 30, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on November 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is going to not drive under the influence of alcohol again, and the Plaintiff is going to engage in delivery service at another company and is seeking a new workplace without a driver’s license. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is unable to seek a new workplace without a driver’s license, and that the Plaintiff must support his spouse and children, and that the principal and interest of the loan should be repaid, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing the discretion.

B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.