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 November 3, 2018, at around 02:25, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.064% on the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul on the roads before the Gangnam-gu Seoul, and was under the control of the police officer.

B. On December 8, 2018, the Defendant imposed 100 points to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the above duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, which constitutes the ground for suspension of license, added 30 points to the Plaintiff’s given points that the Plaintiff was imposed on November 3, 2018 as a violation of the traffic classification (in violation of the central line), and issued 130 points in total (i.e., 100 points) on the Plaintiff’s given that the 121 point was above 121 points per year for the base date of revocation of the driver’s license (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) pursuant to Article 93(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On December 31, 2018, 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 February 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 3, 14, Eul's 4 through 7 (including Serials), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful by exceeding the scope of discretion, or by abusing discretion, considering all circumstances, including the fact that a person operating a broadcasting company and a manufacturer of a broadcast content necessarily requires driving on business, the distance of driving is short, economic difficulties, and family members who need support.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power is public interest by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.