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 September 10, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) and around July 21, 2019, the Plaintiff driven approximately 2.2 km-si car in CNsi under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.165% from the place in which Manyang-gu, Manyang-gu, Suyang-dong, Annyang-dong, Annyang-dong, had been under the influence of 0.34% from the place in which Manyang-dong, Annyang-dong, Annyang-dong, had been under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.165%.

B. On August 1, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 1, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident by the drinking driving of this case; the distance of the drinking driving of this case is relatively short of 1.5km; the plaintiff is a model driver for 15 years without any particular accident; the plaintiff actively cooperates with investigation agencies and reflects with regard to the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff "D" is essential for driving because he purchases food materials directly from the drinking market every day by mixing with his spouse and one child; the plaintiff supports his spouse and one child; the parent's thickness should also have the economic help; and the disposition of this case is in violation of law such as deviation from discretion and abuse.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is consistent with the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, and the public interest and the corresponding disposition.