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 7, 2018, at around 03:06, the Plaintiff driven CMW 520d-car (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”) under the influence of alcohol level of 0.167% on the front road of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu Seoul.

B. On October 3, 2018, 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 October 18, 2018, but was dismissed on November 20, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been engaged in compliance driving without a long-term accident, and actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving, and the Plaintiff’s advertisement film producer is obliged to operate his/her business and experienced economic difficulties. The instant disposition is deemed to exceed the scope of discretion or abuse discretionary power.

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 this case, 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 or not should be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant laws and regulations, not only the above criteria for disposition