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 02:40 on September 7, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.156% at the front of the Goyang-si Port-dong, Goyang-si, and discovered them to police officers.

B. On November 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class 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 November 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 21, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 19 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff used a usual driving, actively cooperated in the police officer’s investigation, the Plaintiff’s occupation requires absolute driver’s license, and the Plaintiff’s economically difficult life, etc., the instant disposition was in violation of the law that deviates from and abused the discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.

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

C. 1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages that an individual may suffer by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposal, and the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2000Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).