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 September 20, 2019, at around 23:15, the Plaintiff driven a Bnish-do car with a blood alcohol level of 0.182%, and from the D parking lot located in Echeon-si C to the roads front the 2360 km in Ethical etho-si, Ethm from the D parking lot in Ethcheon-si to Ethical etho-si 2360.

B. On November 2, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II 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. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 7, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is relatively short of the distance from driving a motor vehicle due to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving, the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident for about 19 years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, or did not drive a motor vehicle again, and is going against the present condition and is going not to drive a motor vehicle again, and the Plaintiff is working as a logistics center’s business and delivery service employee, and when the driver’s license is revoked due to the need for the driver’s license due to the characteristics of duties, it is difficult to perform his/her duties, and the Plaintiff’s spouse and two children must support the two children, and all liabilities such as the vehicle loan must be repaid. In light of the above, the instant disposition is revoked because it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to have abused or abused discretion, so it is too harsh to the contrary.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is intended to be achieved by the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition and the relevant disposition.