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 May 20, 2019, at around 21:31, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.169% on the front of the ASEAN-si, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On June 26, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) 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 July 9, 2019, but was dismissed on August 20, 2019.

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

2. Whether the 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, that the distance of drunk driving is only 200 meters, that it was an accidentless driving career for 19 years, that the Plaintiff is essential to operate a vehicle to work and to commute to and from work, and that there are family members to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse 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 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.