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 25, 2019, at around 04:17, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% at the front of Daejeon Seo-gu B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On September 6, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II 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 January 14, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 7, Eul's 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking driving after drinking alcohol in this case, 13 years of accident experience, 3 km of drinking driving distance is relatively short, and the plaintiff is in charge of business such as management, delivery, etc. in a coffee company in Sejong-si, and the vehicle operation is essential, economic difficulties are experienced, and there are family members 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.