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 December 19, 2018, at around 06:58, the Plaintiff driven CMW 320d-car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.12% on the front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On January 5, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 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 January 21, 2019, but was dismissed on March 5, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that there was no personal injury, the Plaintiff’s self-employed person is in need of operation of occupational vehicles for the purchase of food materials, having economic difficulties and having family members to support. The instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abused discretion.

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 it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and whether the pertinent disposition is legitimate or not.