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

A. On January 30, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class I ordinary) and acquired a driver’s license (Class I large) on February 29, 1988. On January 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.082%, and was engaged in the removal business.

B. On September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.046% of blood alcohol level, driven an Epoter II cargo vehicle (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”) with a distance of about 6 km from the Ki Government-si B apartment to the front road of D elementary school located in C from the Ki Government-si B apartment road to the D elementary school located in C.

C. On October 10, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on October 25, 2019, but was dismissed on December 3, 2019.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1 to No. 11]

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is so harsh that it is too harsh that he or she would be fine because he or she does not go outside the 20th week, and that he or she is deemed to have been fine, that blood alcohol level is deemed to have come high compared to drinking, and that his or her driver’s license is absolutely necessary.

However, according to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Plaintiff has a history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license to the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.