The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On October 28, 2019, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a 0.186% alcohol concentration in blood, and was driving D-car on the road located in C-W or in front of the Dong-Eup (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”) in a state of under the influence of alcohol on October 28, 2019, resulting in an accident where the said vehicle was stopped and delayed, resulting in an accident that led to the said vehicle.

B. On December 2, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class driver’s license on the grounds of the instant drinking driving and the occurrence of human damage therefrom (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on February 12, 2020, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on April 28, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 15, the whole purport of arguments, the purport of the disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff mistakenly recognized the plaintiff's mistake, opposed to the plaintiff's assertion, and again, the plaintiff would not drive under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the plaintiff was allowed to drive under the multilateral mind with a communication that blood tin is in a disturbance, the driver's license of this case is essential due to the characteristics of the plaintiff's medical care and the company's business, the agreement with the victims and the degree of injury was not severe, the plaintiff suffered economic difficulties due to many debts, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration was high compared to the drinking volume of the plaintiff's health, etc., the disposition of this case is unlawful since it exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.

The issue of whether the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power is whether the pertinent legal disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms is determined by the content of the relevant violation and the relevant disposition.