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 December 25, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.187% at around 01:40.

B. Accordingly, on January 10, 2020, the defendant issued a notice of revocation of the driver's license (class 1 large, class 1 common) to the plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on March 3, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that he had been driving without a traffic accident or a force of drunk driving for 22 years since the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was obtained, there was no damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving, and the distance of movement is relatively short, and actively cooperates in the detection of drinking driving, such as confession, etc., the driver’s license is absolutely absolutely necessary for the operation of the restaurant, such as purchase of various materials, and there was difficulty in maintaining livelihood, family support, debt redemption, and blood donation activities, etc., the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the Plaintiff’s disadvantage that is infringed than the public interest to be achieved, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing its discretionary authority.

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, as well as all relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or law, or are in line with the above disposition