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 September 29, 2002, the Plaintiff was found to have been in the Incheon Central Police Station and on December 2, 2012 at the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station.

B. On May 29, 2019, at around 07:19, the Plaintiff driven a C vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.09% on the front side of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and was discovered to police officers.

C. On June 25, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary driving license against the Plaintiff by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol more than three times.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion had no awareness and intent that the Plaintiff is driving under influence after drinking prior to the control day, and that the Plaintiff’s revocation of the driver’s license due to driving under drinking again resulted in the instant disposition after six years have passed since the revocation of the driver’s license due to driving under influence, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. According to the above evidence, at the time of the Plaintiff’s detection, the condition at the time of the detection was “rhythr: rhythral condition”, “salver condition”, “salver condition”, and “driver blood color”. The blood alcohol concentration at 0.09% was far more than 0.05% of the depositee’s blood alcohol level. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff sufficiently salves after drinking, it cannot be deemed that there was no awareness of his/her blood condition.

In addition, according to the above relevant laws and regulations, the defendant's driver's license is necessary for the plaintiff who has driven at least three times after June 30, 201.