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

A. On April 5, 2017, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.073% on 0.073%, has the history of suspending the driver’s license due to a violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On December 11, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.045% alcohol level around 22:18.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on January 8, 2020, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of “drinking not less than twice”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) On March 10, 2020, the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal filed against the instant disposition was dismissed on March 10, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (if there is a serial number, it includes a serial number). The purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

가. 원고의 주장 이 사건 음주운전으로 인한 피해사실이 없고, 이동거리가 30∽50m로 비교적 짧은 점, 평소 대리운전을 이용하는 등 음주운전을 회피해온 점, 자백하는 등 음주운전 적발 사항에 적극 협조한 점, 제약회사 영업직으로 업무상 운전면허가 절대적으로 필요하고, 운전면허 취소 시 직장유지, 생계유지, 배우자와 부모님 부양, 부채상환에 어려움이 생기는 점 등을 고려하면, 이 사건 처분은 달성하려는 공익보다 침해되는 원고의 불이익이 훨씬 크므로 재량권을 일탈남용하여 위법하다.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, where a person who was driven while under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the same Act again drives while under the influence of alcohol and thus falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license, it is clear that there is no room for discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver's license. As such, the above provision is required.