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 June 19, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) around 00:57, on the front of Silung City B, driven C low-speed car volume with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.154% while under the influence of alcohol at the front of Silung City (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On July 12, 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 on August 27, 2019, but was dismissed on October 1, 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 human and physical damage did not occur, and that the Plaintiff’s commuting distance to and from work is far away from his place of business as its employees, and is frequently commuting to the outside, so it is essential to operate a vehicle on duty, economic difficulties, and family members who should support, etc., the instant disposition exceeded 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 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 affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and the relevant disposition is legitimate.