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 26, 2019, at around 04:45, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car while under the influence of alcohol of 0.147%, and 5 km from the front of the distance of the culture of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu to the front of Seocheon-si, Incheon.

B. On October 16, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class 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 21, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 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 driving without causing any personal injury or injury due to the plaintiff's drinking driving, the plaintiff's acquisition of the driver's license has no history of causing traffic accidents or driving under influence for about five years, and the plaintiff is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol again, and the plaintiff's main duty is to transport food materials to a vehicle with a vehicle as well as a hole management at the store. Since a large amount of food materials are moved from the store, if the driver's license is revoked because it is impossible to use public transportation, it is in the place where the performance of duty would be impossible, and the plaintiff should receive treatment for each her driver's license, receive school loans, and pay living expenses to his/her mother and child, the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is in violation of law of abuse of discretionary power by too harshing the plaintiff.

B. The judgment-1 punitive administrative disposition has deviates from the scope of discretion by social norms.