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 May 11, 2020, at around 07:35, the Plaintiff, while driving a C vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.211% in front of Michuhol-gu Incheon City, Michuhol-gu, Incheon, was discovered to police officers.

B. On June 12, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On June 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 21, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff complied with the law and has been driving without an accident or a force of drinking alcohol for 15 years after the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff used his/her ordinary driving as an agent, and actively cooperated with the police officer’s investigation, the Plaintiff’s occupation (daily workers, proxy driving engineer) requires absolute driver’s license, and the Plaintiff should support her mother, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and thus, constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2000Du11779, if the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with