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 October 5, 2019, at around 08:32, the Plaintiff driven a B-wheeled automobile under the influence of alcohol content of 0.117%, and driven a approximately 200-meter distance from the building in front of the G-gu branch office in the G-gu Subdivision in the G-Si of the Gyeonggi Sungnam-si to the street in front of the G-gu Masium located in the G-gu Subdivision branch office in the G-Si of the Masium in the

B. On November 15, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s bicycle driver’s license for Class I, II, and II motor vehicles (hereinafter “instant disposition”) 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.

C. On December 12, 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 February 11, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 18 evidence, Eul evidence 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 of the Plaintiff’s driving of the instant case in 200 meters, active cooperation with respect to the detection, the Plaintiff is currently in office as a delivery agency and Kwiksetman, and the Plaintiff is currently in office as a delivery agency and Kwiksetman, and the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license due to the characteristics of his duties, the economic situation of the Plaintiff is not good, and the Plaintiff is said to not drive the instant case again while against the present situation. In light of the above, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, or whether it constitutes an abuse of discretionary power, shall objectively deliberate on the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances complying with the disposition, thereby infringing the public