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 14, 2019, at around 04:45, the Plaintiff driven BM5 car while under the influence of alcohol of 0.124%, and 2.5km from the roads near the Geum-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul to the roads front C of the same Gu.

B. On September 19, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on November 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was not high at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol. Since the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, there was no history of causing traffic accidents or driving under the influence of alcohol for about ten years, and the Plaintiff is engaged in the supply and business activities of products to the hospital and the pharmacy of the Gyeonggi Institute as a pharmaceutical business employee. If the license is revoked due to the relationship between the distance of the customer and the distance of the location of the customer at all times and the late time, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to perform its duties, and the Plaintiff must support the parents, and even if the Plaintiff had contacted the minor accident during driving under the influence of alcohol, it should be revoked because the instant disposition was in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power because it was too harsh to the Plaintiff.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is determined by the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition and the relevant disposition.