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 March 15, 2019, at around 00:06, the Plaintiff driven B K5 cars while under the influence of alcohol by 0.129%, and 200 meters from the front of the main station in the Sinwon-si, Suwon-si, Songwon-si, and the front of the main station in the Sinwon-si, Sinwon-si, to the front of the 161 full-time road.

B. On April 2, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking 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 0.1% (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 May 24, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that no personal or material damage has occurred due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving, the distance of the Plaintiff’s driving under influence of alcohol is relatively short, and the Plaintiff is expected to not drive under the influence of alcohol again, and there is no history of causing traffic accidents or driving under the influence of alcohol for about 11 years since the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff is engaged in the medical device business office, and the Plaintiff is in the position of the medical device business office. Considering the fact that the license is revoked due to the relationship between the Plaintiff’s main business and the outside and the local business trip every day because it is impossible to perform his/her duties and it is in the position to terminate his/her duties, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the subject of the disposition, and the public interest and the subject of the disposition in question.