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 19, 2019, at around 23:55, the Plaintiff driven a D vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.108% at the front of the Cmaart in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, and was discovered to police officers.

B. On October 23, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On December 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 11, 2020.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff driven a relatively short distance, there is no injury, the fact that the Plaintiff complied with the law without an accident or force of drunk driving for 17 years after obtaining a driver’s license, the police officer actively cooperates in the investigation by the police officer, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary, and the Plaintiff must support his family, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and thus is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2000Du11779, if the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with