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 March 13, 2019, at around 23:05, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.063% on the front of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B, and was under the control of the police officer.

B. On February 23, 2019, the Defendant imposed 100 points to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, which constitutes the ground for suspension of license, and imposed 110 points to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2019, added 110 points to the Plaintiff’s given points for the violation of the duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol and the duty of safe driving under the duty of safe driving (i.e., 100 points) and issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (i.e., the instant disposition) on March 28, 2019 pursuant to Article 93(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018).

C. On April 10, 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 May 14, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant 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 there was no personal injury, and that there was a family member to support the employee in charge of the pertinent business, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful by exceeding the scope of discretion due to excessive suspicion, or by abuse of discretionary power.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power shall be determined by the content of the offense as the ground for the disposition, and the public interest and any other ancillary thereto.