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 January 31, 2020, at around 06:05, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.111% on the road in front of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and was discovered to police officers.

B. On February 14, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the second-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 the influence of alcohol as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On February 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 14, 2020.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that there is no damage caused by the Plaintiff’s alleged drunk driving, that the Plaintiff used a usual acting driving, that the Plaintiff actively cooperatedd with the police officer’s investigation, and that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for employment, the instant disposition is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused the discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the instant disposition.

(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 on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000; 2000Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).