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 October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.118% with blood alcohol concentration around 22:22.

B. Accordingly, on October 21, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on December 10, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the following: (a) since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was obtained, the driving distance was relatively short of 1.6km; (b) the driving distance was used as an agent; (c) actively cooperates in the detection of drunk driving by confession; (d) the entire department is controlled as a member of the technology and business division; and (e) the occupational driver’s license is absolutely necessary to manage the customer; and (e) the difficulty in maintaining the livelihood and supporting family relations arises when the driver’s license was revoked, the instant disposition is much more unfavorable than the public interest to be achieved; and (e) the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is much more than that of the Plaintiff, thereby

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 on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, as well as all the relevant circumstances (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 consistent with the Constitution or law, or are related to the violation for which a punitive administrative disposition