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 October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.082% under the influence of alcohol on October 31, 2006, has a record of violating the duty of prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On July 21, 2019, at around 00:20, the Plaintiff driven Cone Star Car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.043% at the front of Silung City B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

C. On August 3, 2019, the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in the “person who drives the third or higher drinking” as stated in the second written disposition to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 ordinary) on the ground of this case’s violation of the duty of prohibition of drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on October 1, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on November 19, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 2 through 7 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no physical injury due to the pertinent drunk driving, and the driving distance is only two to three km, the blood alcohol concentration is not high, and the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation into a drunk driving. The Plaintiff’s vehicle operation is essential for its customer’s business to supply it to its customer, and the Plaintiff experienced economic difficulties, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary authority.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, where a person who violated Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, i.e., Article 44(1) of the same Act, once again violates the same and thus constitutes a ground for suspension of a driver’s license, the defendant must revoke the driver’s license

The above recognition is recognized.