The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 23, 2020, at around 01:50, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.105% in front of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On June 15, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 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, but was dismissed on August 18, 2020.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, 6, Eul’s 1, 2, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is a non-accident driver's experience for 23 years, the distance of drunk driving is relatively short of 3 km, the plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving after drinking driving in this case, the plaintiff's quality control and production team leader is in charge of the company members, so the plaintiff's living is essential, economic difficulties are experienced, and there is a family member to support. In light of all circumstances, the disposition of this case is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive 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 such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, 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 it has no effect to guarantee citizens or courts externally.