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 25, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol around 01:10% of alcohol level, driven a B-LA car with 0.183% of alcohol level, and driven 1 km from the front of Incheon Military Cpenta to D-L on the road.

B. On September 18, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II 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 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (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 December 3, 2019.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is relatively short of the distance from the plaintiff's driving under the influence of alcohol, the plaintiff has 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 expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol again. The plaintiff is in a place where it is difficult to continue working if the driver's license is revoked because it is necessary to engage in the business of delivering motor vehicle parts, and because it is difficult for the plaintiff to commute to and from work due to public transportation in a place different from his residence, it is necessary to support the plaintiff's mother who suffers from dementia, and the driver's driving of the vehicle is essential to take care of the plaintiff's mother who suffers from dementia, and the obligation for every month should be repaid or paid back, and thus, the disposition in this case should be revoked because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.

B. Whether the first punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms.