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 18, 2019, at around 07:10, the Plaintiff driven C rocketing car volume while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.131% on the front of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On October 16, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) 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 on November 4, 2019, but was dismissed on December 3, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 7, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was actively cooperating in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and considering all circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s operation of a vehicle on duty is essential, economic difficulties and family members to support due to frequent visits by a customer to a business employee working for a pharmaceutical company, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an 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 the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.

In this case, 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 agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above criteria for disposition.