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 October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.181% of alcohol level around 23:14.

B. Accordingly, on November 22, 2018, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class I ordinary and class II motorcycles) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on December 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 10, 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged driver’s license has been under safe driving without the history of traffic accidents or drunk driving for over 20 years, the cancellation of the driver’s license is unable to perform the occupation-related store management work, making it difficult for the Plaintiff to support his/her livelihood and family support, and that the Plaintiff has practiced sharing of neighbors through volunteer activities, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing or abusing discretion.

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantages that an individual may suffer by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest achieved by the relevant act of disposal, as well as all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). In a case where the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance, the disposition standards per se do not conform to the Constitution or the relevant Act, or where there is no reasonable ground to believe that the disposition standards are considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation and the content and purport of the relevant statutes.