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, while under the influence of alcohol at 00:44% of alcohol, driven the B car volume in the B car while under the influence of alcohol at 0.125%, and driven a 1km section in the front of the B car in the Gyeonggi-do in the Gyeonggi-do in the Gyeonggi-do in the Gyeonggi-do in the Gyeonggi-do in the Gyeonggi-do in the Gyeonggi-do in the Gyeonggi-do.

B. On October 21, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on December 3, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that no personal or material damage has occurred due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving, and the distance of the vehicle is relatively short of 1km, since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff has caused a traffic accident for about 29 years, has no record of driving under influence, has no record of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the Plaintiff has been using a usual driving, has been using a usual driving, and the Plaintiff has been in charge of operating business and operating a business as a self-employed, and the Plaintiff has supported the Plaintiff’s family, and thus, the instant disposition is revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing its discretionary power.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not is objectively the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.