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 August 12, 2017, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.052% by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and was given a penalty of 100 points with the disposition of suspending the driver’s license.

B. On August 1, 2018, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at around 22:49, driven a B rocketing car owned by himself/herself, and 500 meters from the front of Gwangju City to the front of the same city.

C. The defendant Na

On August 17, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a disposition to revoke each driver’s license stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s 100 points added the 100 points and the 200 points per year, and the 121 points per year, which is the criteria for the revocation of driver’s license.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the intent of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not cause any personal or physical damage due to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving; (b) alcohol level is minor; (c) the Plaintiff is against and again going not to drive alcohol; and (d) the Plaintiff is working in a entertainment establishment as an entertainment business entity; and (c) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the promotion of the entertainment business, customer traffic, and parking agency service, etc., the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, constitutes an

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, or whether it constitutes a violation of public interest by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.