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 February 28, 2019, at around 00:35, the Plaintiff driven a Bstoke car while under the influence of alcohol by 0.185%, and 1 km from the roads near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gangnam Station to the shooting distance of the former C apartment.

B. On April 3, 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 April 30, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause any personal or material damage due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving, the distance from driving under the influence of alcohol is short of 1 km, the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident for about 16 years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, or did not have any history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the Plaintiff is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol again, and is now against and again going again. The Plaintiff’s position in seed development is the relationship that the Plaintiff should move 3,00-5,00km every month to a vehicle while engaging in a seed development position, and must return to a dry field, which is a farming and crop growing area, and down a downage. If the license is revoked, the primary performance of duties would be impossible, and the cancellation of the license would have to take account of the fact that the Plaintiff was notified by the actual company to resign until the end of August 2019, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked because it constitutes an abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is a ground for the disposition.