2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 17, 2019, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that “A person who violated the prohibition of drinking driving by driving at the front door of Chang-si, Chang-si, Busan Metropolitan City, under the influence of blood alcohol level 0.064%” (hereinafter “instant disposition to revoke the instant disposition”) on the ground that “A person who was in violation of the prohibition of drinking driving by driving at the front door of the same Gu, on October 24, 2001, on February 14, 2003 (0.067% of blood alcohol level), and on April 16, 2007 (0.109% of blood alcohol level), was drunk at around 06:25, 2019, while under the influence of blood alcohol level 0.054% ( blood collection), was driving a motor vehicle again in violation of the prohibition of drinking driving license” (hereinafter “motor vehicle”).

B. On September 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on October 29, 2019, there was a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged cargo driving is the only means of livelihood of his family members, that there was no fact of drinking after 2007, that it was controlled at the time of working at the night due to the previous drinking, and that the first time of the respiratory measurement was only 0.046%, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion.

B. We examine the judgment, and the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that when a person who violates the same provision again violates the same provision, the driver’s license shall be inevitably revoked, there is no room for the disposition authority to decide whether to revoke the license.

Therefore, as long as the above facts of driving are recognized, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has discretion to cancel the plaintiff's driver's license is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .