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

A. On February 16, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary driver's license on July 29, 2009, and received a disposition of revocation of a driver's license on March 19, 2014 (0.208% blood alcohol concentration). On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff again acquired a Class 2 ordinary driver's license (B) on May 11, 2015, and on April 23, 2019, at around 23.8 km-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seoul, the two-lane-dong Highway-dong, the second 23.8 km-dong Highway-dong, while under the influence of alcohol on July 29, 209, the Plaintiff neglected the Plaintiff's duty of safe driving in the direction of 0.134% (hereinafter "the Plaintiff's duty of safe driving") and neglected the Plaintiff's duty of safe driving in the direction of 20 k driver's license in Incheon.

B. On June 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 16, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff used a usual driving, the possibility and risk of criticism for the driving of the case of this case is significantly low, and the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects to investigation agencies in relation to the driving of the case of this case, the plaintiff has been engaged in activities to support the usual driving, the plaintiff is operating a tester company as a representative E, and the distance of commuting to and from work is 45km.