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

A. On October 12, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to have driven twice on May 14, 2004 (0.115% of blood alcohol level), and was found to have driven twice on April 14, 2010 (0.113% of blood alcohol level), on September 15, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol level 0.054% of alcohol level 0.054% of alcohol level, around September 23:30, 2019.”

B. On October 29, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on December 3, 2019, there was a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s demand for substitute driving on behalf of the Plaintiff did not assign an article, resulting in the instant drunk driving; (b) the damage was not true; (c) the driving distance is short and the blood alcohol level is not relatively high; and (d) the driving license is essential.

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. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.