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 August 8, 2019, around 23:11, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car volume with the alcohol level of 0.176% under the influence of alcohol at the front of the 215 Suyang-dong Office (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On August 21, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) 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 September 5, 2019, but was dismissed on October 22, 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. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking alcohol after the pertinent drunk driving, and that human and physical damage did not occur, and that the driving distance is only 1 km, and that the Plaintiff is frequently engaged in the technical business, so it is essential to operate a vehicle on duty, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary authority.

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 internal rules for administrative affairs of administrative agencies, and it is an external citizen or court.