1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 18:00 on May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1-1 is based on the time indicated in the suspect interrogation protocol (Evidence No. 4-1), but it is based on the evidence No. 3-3 and evidence No. 4-1 written at the control site.

On the front side of the Gyeongnam Navy B, the vehicle C was driven with a 1 ton of 1 ton of alcohol while drunk with 0.132% alcohol concentration.

(hereinafter referred to as “dacting driving of this case”). B.

On June 25, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license and Class II ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the instant drinking driving.

C. On July 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on August 13, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 1, 3, and 4 evidence (including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was driven in a state where he did not 17:00 by drinking her friend and drinking until the new wall on the day, while driving her in a state where she did not selly take place at around 17:00, and she did not know about it.

Hands were found to have been in a slope in the process of driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation into drinking driving of the instant case.

The plaintiff supports a family as a cargo engineer, and where the disposition of this case is maintained, it has a serious impact on the livelihood of the plaintiff and his family.

Considering these circumstances, given that the Plaintiff’s private interest infringed on the public interest that would be achieved by the instant disposition is considerably large, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. Whether the single punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms, or abused discretionary power.