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 July 20, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.173% of alcohol level around 09:00.

B. Accordingly, on August 17, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notice of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 large and class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1km of travel distance is relatively short, there is no damage caused by the instant drunk driving, the fact that an exemplary driving has been committed for 11 years since the acquisition of the driver’s license without traffic accidents or the influence of drunk driving, confession, etc., and the fact that an artist’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary when the driver’s license is revoked, debt redemption, maintenance of livelihood, financial support for parents, parents’ sharing through blood donation activities, practice of neighbor sharing through blood donation, and the receipt of a commendation and a scholarship certificate, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing the Plaintiff’s disadvantage, which is much greater than that of the public interest to be achieved, and is against the law by abusing discretionary power.

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 act of disposition, and 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 conform to the Constitution