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 August 6, 2020, the Plaintiff driven a 2nd km-lurged car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.156% during blood transfusion around 22:00, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.156%, and 2km from the front of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C to the front of the Seoul Jung-gu D.

B. On August 28, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driven while under the influence of alcohol more than 0.08% in blood, which is the base value for revocation of license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(c)

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on October 13, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is relatively short of the distance from which the Plaintiff driven while drinking alcohol; the Plaintiff’s acquisition of a driver’s license that caused a traffic accident between about 12 years and that there was no power to drive alcohol; and the Plaintiff is against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would not drive alcohol again.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is in need of driving due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s work during the construction material purchase team, and thus, the Plaintiff is in the position to discontinue his/her main duties because it is impossible to perform his/her duties when his/her driver’s license is revoked, and that the Plaintiff must support his/her parents, prepare for marriage, and pay his/her loans, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing his/her discretion.

B. 1) Determination whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion in light of social norms is the degree of infringement of the public interest by objectively examining the content of the offense on which the disposition was based, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances pertaining thereto, etc.