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 September 20, 2019, at around 23:45, the Plaintiff driven a B-car while under the influence of alcohol of 0.158%, and a approximately KRW 500 meters from the roads near Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C to the roads in front of the building Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On October 16, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking Class I ordinary and Class II ordinary drivers’ licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against 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.

C. On November 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 7, 2020.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, as a veterinarian, caused a traffic accident for about 27 years since the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license or caused a safe driving without the history of driving under the influence of alcohol, the driving distance of the instant vehicle is relatively short as about 1k meters, used a normal agency driving, actively cooperates with the detection, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s work, the Plaintiff is suffering from the Sim Madro-Mari-gun and needs to support his family members, and the Plaintiff’s disposition is currently against and again going against the Plaintiff, and thus, it should be revoked.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, or whether it constitutes an abuse of discretionary power, shall objectively deliberate on the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances complying with the disposition, thereby infringing the public