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 15, 2019, at around 04:55, the Plaintiff driven a C vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.101% at the front of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and was discovered to police officers.

B. On January 14, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Class I ordinary and Class II ordinary driver's license by applying Article 93 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On January 6, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 21, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 18 evidence, Eul's 1 to 12 evidence (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had complied with the law without an accident or the influence of drunk driving for thirty (30) years after the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the circumstances and circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving, the circumstances leading up to the detection of the driver’s license, and the fact that the driver’s license is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of livelihood due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’

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

C. 1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the offense, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2000Du11779, etc.; where the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards themselves are not in conformity with the Constitution or law; or they are related to the content of