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 July 30, 2019, at around 20:41, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.177% (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On August 9, 2019, 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, but was dismissed on October 15, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 through 6, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation into a drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that there was no personal injury, the distance of the drunk driving is only 100 meters, the accidentless driving career for 17 years, the Plaintiff’s business trip as its members, the vehicle is essential to operate because the distance of commuting is high, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretionary authority or abused discretionary authority.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive 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 such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances.

In such cases, 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 therefore there is no effect to the public or court externally, and the relevant disposition is concerned.