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 30, 2018, at around 06:19, the Plaintiff was driving a car by starting from the vicinity of the Seodaemun-si Terminal in Pakistan to the roads adjacent to the B apartment in Pakistan, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.138%.

B. On October 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of November 16, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff was drunk driving pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

C. On November 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 4, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff obstructed the flow of the vehicle due to the pertinent drunk driving or did not cause any traffic accident.

The plaintiff has been driving for 25 years without an exemplary accident.

The plaintiff has used a proxy driving at ordinary drinking time. At the time of this case, the plaintiff could not use a proxy driving for about 6 hours with a new wall.

After the detection of drinking alcohol, the plaintiff actively cooperated and reflected in the investigation.

The plaintiff is working in boiler agencies. Since the plaintiff's license is to supply boilers using the vehicle, it is difficult to maintain his/her livelihood due to the cancellation of the license.

The plaintiff supports his family and is also economically difficult.

Considering the above circumstances, the instant disposition was unlawful because it was an abuse of discretion.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not is objectively the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.