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 July 5, 2019, at around 23:29, the Plaintiff driven a C vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.121% on the front side of Michuhol-gu Incheon, Michuhol-gu, Incheon, and discovered it to police officers.

B. On July 17, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On October 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 3, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff driven a relatively short distance, there is no injury, the fact that the Plaintiff complied with the law without an accident or force of drinking, actively cooperates with the police officers in the investigation for five years after obtaining a driver’s license, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s occupation, and the Plaintiff ought to support her mother, the instant disposition is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages that an individual would suffer by 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; 2000Du11779, etc.). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance, the disposition standards themselves are not in conformity with the Constitution