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 June 28, 2019, at around 00:26, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.146% alcohol level.

B. Accordingly, on July 25, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notice of revocation of a driver’s license (class I ordinary and class II ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on October 1, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no damage caused by drinking alcohol driving in this case; (b) the actual distance is relatively short of 2 km; (c) the use of a usual driving by proxy; (d) the confession; and (e) the driver’s license of an occupational instructor of the Sports Center is absolutely necessary when the driver’s license is revoked; (c) family support, difficulties in maintaining livelihood; (d) donation; (e) blood donation; and (e) volunteer service activities, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion, since the disadvantage of the Plaintiff, which is much greater than that of the public interest to be achieved,

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not consistent with the Constitution or law, or are related to the violation for which a punitive administrative disposition