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 December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff, while driving a B vehicle under the influence of alcohol at around 08:31, 201, caused a traffic accident that causes personal injury to one injured person while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol at 0.081%.

B. Accordingly, on March 5, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 large, class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on May 14, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had been able to take a night-time care after drinking; (b) the Defendant was able to commit an exemplary driving without traffic accidents or driving skills for eight years since the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was acquired; (c) the Defendant actively cooperated with the investigative agency, such as the confession and reflect; (d) the Defendant’s occupational driver’s license is absolutely necessary; and (e) the Plaintiff’s family support and maintenance of livelihood are difficult at the time of the revocation of the driver’s license, etc., the instant disposition is much more unfavorable than that of the Plaintiff’s public interest gained therefrom, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or