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 6, 2019, at around 20:40, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.239% in front of Pyeongtaek-si B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On September 27, 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, but was dismissed on December 20, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul No. 1, 2, 4, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, the occurrence of human damage, the occurrence of personal damage, the Plaintiff’s demand for mobile parking, the Plaintiff’s duty vehicle operation is essential for construction workers, economic difficulties, and family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive 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 such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the 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 thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above criteria but also the contents and purport of the relevant statutes.