The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On June 13, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary motor vehicle driver’s license.

On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff driven a C L-Wy Motor Vehicle Quantities, while under the influence of alcohol 0.134% of alcohol level on the front of B at Jeju Island B.

(2) On May 1, 2019, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was a drunk driver.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 12, 2019, but was dismissed on July 16, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of the investigative agency of the drinking driving of this case, and the distance of drinking driving of this case is relatively short, and there was no personal or material damage therefrom. The plaintiff is operating a company that distributes promotional items and promotional materials, and there are family members who are in need of operation and support and have economic difficulties.

In light of the above overall circumstances, the instant disposition is erroneous in deviation from or abuse of discretion.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances in question. If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards are not in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws, or are in line with the above disposition standards, and the contents of the offense, which constitutes the grounds for the disposition.