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 23, 2019, at around 05:43, the Plaintiff driven C Track Motor Vehicle Quantity while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.118% on the front of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On September 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 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 September 20, 2019, but was dismissed on October 29, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 5 through 8, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking driving after the drinking driving of this case and does not cause personal injury, and the plaintiff considered all circumstances such as the fact that the driving of the motor vehicle is essential for the plaintiff's children to become a criminal working in the Taekwondo field, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, the disposition of this case 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 such cases, 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 the relevant disposition is legitimate or not.