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 27, 2019, at around 14:59, the Plaintiff driven B motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.132% on the street in front of the driving distance from the original Dongdong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On June 25, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large and class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 25, 2019, but was dismissed on September 10, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 7, Eul's 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that human and physical damage did not occur, and that the distance of drunk driving is only 200 meters, the Plaintiff’s operation of a vehicle as an urban bus driver is essential, economic difficulties are experienced, and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and therefore there is no effect to the public or court externally, and the relevant disposition is concerned.