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 December 2, 2019, at around 21:43, the Plaintiff driven a B-car level while under the influence of alcohol with 0.158% of alcohol level, and driving a approximately two-meter distance on the roads front Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do.

B. On January 11, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking Class I ordinary and Class II ordinary drivers’ licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) 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 license.

C. On January 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 17, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for about 19 years, he/she has been driving on an exemplary basis without any traffic accident or influence of drinking alcohol except for a minor violation of the two recommended laws and regulations for 19 years; (b) the distance of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case is relatively short of 1 km; (c) he/she has used a usual driving; (d) actively cooperated with respect to the detection; (e) the Plaintiff is in a distribution position; (c) the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license due to the characteristics of the distribution position; and (d) the Plaintiff is supporting two spouse and two children;

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 the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition in question, the public interest to be achieved by the disposition in question, and all relevant circumstances.