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

A. On August 6, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license of a motor vehicle on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to have driven the motor vehicle on March 19, 2004 (0.178% of blood alcohol level), but around July 25, 2019, at around 07:25, B motor vehicle was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.044% in the condition of under the influence of alcohol level of at least 0.04% of blood alcohol level, on July 25, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On August 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on September 24, 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 disposition of this case is unlawful by abusing discretion, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood needs to maintain the Plaintiff’s driver’s license; (b) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was controlled at the time of his boarding due to the preceding drinking; (c) there was no punishment for driving other than drinking in 2004; and (d) the blood alcohol concentration level was 0.04% prior to the amendment to 0.04%.

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