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

A. On April 25, 2019, around 22:43, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a BK5 car while under the influence of alcohol in front of the physical distance of the industrial complex of Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4 industrial complex; (b) was measured at 0.170% of the alcohol level of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level on the same day as the result of the respiratory measurement conducted around 23:02 on the same day.

B. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the blood alcohol level was driven under the influence of 0.170%. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 21, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s alleged running distance not only is relatively short, but also the personal and material damage caused by drunk driving; (b) the confession of a drunk driving and actively cooperate in the investigation; (c) the Plaintiff’s occupation requires the Plaintiff’s driver’s license; (d) the Plaintiff and his family members’ living is more difficult when the driver’s license is revoked; and (e) the donation and volunteer activities continue to be performed through normal and good social life, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Whether the legality of the instant disposition has exceeded or abused the scope of discretionary authority by social norms, the content of the instant disposition, which is the grounds for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances pertaining thereto.