The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 13, 2020, at around 10:20, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.104% at the front of the Jinjin-si, B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On February 11, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large scale) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 28, 2020.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, 6, Eul’s 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion actively cooperated in the investigation of drinking alcohol after the pertinent drunk driving, the distance of drunk driving is a relatively short of 4 km, the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation is essential while residing in a remote place as its members, suffered economic difficulties due to security deposit money fraud, etc., and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretionary authority or abused discretionary authority.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective to externally bind citizens or courts, and whether such disposition is legitimate or not is not related to the above criteria for disposition.