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 July 6, 2018, the Plaintiff driven B low-est car volume in the state of 0.132% alcohol concentration on the roads of two parts, the central Dong-dong, Busan, Jung-gu, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “dacting driving of this case”). B.

On July 26, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the instant drinking driving, and the said disposition reached the Plaintiff around September 21, 2018.

C. On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on November 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1-1 to 4-2 (including the number of 3) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff used a substitute driving in his ordinary city and caused an accident due to the drinking driving in this case.

The plaintiff is not able to maintain his family's livelihood in the event that the disposition of this case is maintained because the plaintiff is very important in the performance of his/her duties due to a pharmaceutical company's business.

The plaintiff has faithfully cooperated with the investigation of drinking driving of this case, and has been living in this case.

In full view of these circumstances, given that the disadvantage affected by the public interest that would be achieved by the instant disposition is considerably large, the instant disposition was in deviation from and abuse of discretion.

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

C. Whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms, or abused discretionary power, is the reason for the disposition, and objectively examines the content of the offense committed as the reason for the disposition, the public interest intended to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances, and thereby, the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantage that an individual