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 February 26, 2019, at around 00:25, the Plaintiff driven BM5 vehicle volume under the influence of alcohol with 0.108% alcohol concentration on the 89 internal circular road of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-ro 23-ro, Dongdaemun-gu (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On March 12, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (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 March 29, 2019, but was dismissed on April 23, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 4 through 9, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that there was no personal injury, and considering all circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff is essential to operate a motor vehicle on duty as an employee in charge of the motor vehicle sales business, having economic difficulties, and having family members to support, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an 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 the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, 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 it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and whether the pertinent disposition is legitimate or not.