The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 19, 2019, at around 20:40, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.043% at the front of the Jinjin-si (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On January 6, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I large vehicle) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol in the instant case even though he had been under the influence of alcohol in the past (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 14, 2020.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol before driving the motor vehicle in this case.

[2] On December 21, 2003, driving under the influence of alcohol (0.083% of blood alcohol level) and drinking under the influence of alcohol (0.274% of July 9, 2009). 【Ground for Recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3, 5, and Eul’s statements in subparagraphs 1, 2, 4, 13 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the flow of traffic was obstructed or the occurrence of a traffic accident, the distance of drunk driving is relatively short of 900 meters, active cooperation was made in an investigation into a drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, the Plaintiff is engaged in agriculture and has economic difficulties, and there are family members who need to support, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused discretion.

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

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, the commissioner of a district police agency is essential in cases where a person discovered as a result of drinking or refusing to measure drinking again drives a motor vehicle and thus constitutes grounds for suspending the driver’