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 May 30, 2020, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle E, while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.049% at the distance of about 5km from the front of the convenience store in front of Pyeongtaek-si B to the road near Pyeongtaek-si apartment house.

B. Meanwhile, on May 17, 2003, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending driver's license on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level 0.054%.

(c)

On June 12, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had a history of driving alcohol again while driving alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d)

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on August 18, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that human and material damage caused by the Plaintiff’s driving of alcohol does not occur, the distance of driving is relatively short, the Plaintiff has actively cooperated in the investigation and investigation of the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation and investigation, and is currently against and again not driving of alcohol.

In light of the fact that the driver's license is revoked when the driver's license is necessarily required due to the Plaintiff's occupational characteristics, the termination of the Plaintiff's family's livelihood is difficult, and the instant disposition is so harsh that the Plaintiff has abused and abused discretion. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked.

B. Determination of the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda (Law No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant legal provision”) constitutes grounds for suspending driver’s license by driving once again a person who drives a drinking after June 30, 201.