1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 9, 2011, the Plaintiff has a record of violating the prohibition of drunk driving twice by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with 0.239% and 0.087% of blood alcohol concentration on May 20, 2011.

B. On November 14, 2018, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.051% of alcohol level around 07:39.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”).

Accordingly, on December 6, 2018, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018; hereinafter the same), the Defendant issued a notice of revocation of a driver’s license (Class 1 large-scale vehicle) to the Plaintiff on the ground of “driving on at least three occasions” under Article 93(1)2 of the Act.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on January 22, 2019. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s Nos. 1, 6, 7, and Party B’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (which has a serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the blood alcohol level of the alcohol measuring instrument at the time of the first crackdown on the drinking driving of this case was 0.04% as a result of the police officer’s re-measurement of drinking again, it cannot be ruled out that the degree of blood alcohol level was less than 0.05%, taking into account the following factors: (a) the measurement procedure is unfair; and (b) the possibility that the blood alcohol level was less than 0.05%, the disposal standard, is absolutely necessary for the Plaintiff’s business (on-site management and direct labor); (c) the family support and difficulties in maintaining livelihood at the time of the revocation of the driver’s license; (d) the blood alcohol level was not sufficient once between the drinking driving of this case after the driver’s license was revoked on two occasions in 2011; and (e) the power of the drinking driving of this case in 2011.