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 1, 2019, at around 23:25, the Plaintiff driven a Benz C220d car while under the influence of alcohol by 0.087%, and 1 km from the front of Incheon Gyeyang-gu to the front of Incheon Bupyeong-gu D, Incheon.

B. On August 29, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking Class I and II driver’s licenses to 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 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 October 29, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion does not cause any personal or material damage due to the plaintiff's drinking driving, the plaintiff's acquisition of the driver's license that caused a traffic accident for about 17 years, there is no history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the plaintiff is currently going against and again is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol. The plaintiff is a self-employed person who sells the physical therapy equipment for home use, and the plaintiff is in need of a relationship to sell and install the physical therapy equipment for home use, and when the license is revoked, it is impossible to perform his/her duties, and it is possible to terminate his/her business, and the plaintiff must support his/her spouse who has been married with his/her mother, and the principal and interest of the loan should be repaid. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is revoked because there is an error of law that abused discretion by excessively harshing the plaintiff.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is relevant to the act of disposal as the grounds for the disposition.