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 May 15, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.181% of alcohol level around 20:20.

B. Accordingly, on May 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on August 13, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that, for 16 years since the Plaintiff’s assertion obtained the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the exemplary driving without traffic accidents or driving skills, the distance of travel is relatively short of 500 meters, the use of a usual agency driving, the confession, etc. actively cooperates in the detection, etc., and that the operator’s license of an plant equipment and materials business agent is absolutely necessary when the driver’s license is revoked, and that the maintenance of livelihood, family support, and debt repayment is taken place, the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is much more than that of the general public interest to be achieved through the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary authority.

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all relevant circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or law, or they become the ground for