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

On November 18, 2012, the Plaintiff had a record of driving under the influence of alcohol with 0.109% alcohol level.

On September 26, 2019, at around 02:50, the Plaintiff driven a C-Wing Driving in the state of alcohol concentration of 0.079% on the front of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

On November 27, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I, II, and II) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 10, 2019, but was dismissed on January 21, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the driving distance due to the drinking driving of this case is only 5 km, the plaintiff cooperates with the police investigation at the time of detection of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is absolutely necessary due to frequent movement to the outside due to the characteristics of the company's business, and the plaintiff faces economic difficulties due to the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is against the law that deviates from and

Judgment

Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the Commissioner of a Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver's license in a case where the person who drives a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol drives the motor vehicle again while under the influence of alcohol and thus constitutes a ground for suspending

According to the language and text of the above provision, the commissioner of a district police agency shall cancel the driver's license for the person who has driven at least twice, and the commissioner of a district police agency shall not be deemed to have discretion to choose whether to cancel the driver's license.

The whole purport of the aforementioned evidence shall be taken into consideration.