The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 25, 2020, at around 00:50, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.110% in front of the city of Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On April 14, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) 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, but was dismissed on June 23, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 6 evidence, Eul's 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, 18 years of accidentless driving experience, the Plaintiff is engaged in the automobile maintenance business, and the Plaintiff’s operation of the automobile is essential, economic difficulty, and there is a family member to support, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.

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 this case, 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 thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above criteria but also the contents of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.