1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 26, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class 2 ordinary) and acquired a driver’s license on January 7, 2002 (Class 1 ordinary). On August 2, 2002, the Plaintiff was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.090% on November 24, 2003.

B. On November 26, 2019, at around 16:05, the Plaintiff driven a Fpoter 2 cargo vehicle with a distance of about 100 meters from the front of a restaurant in Scheon-si B to the front of an E-cafeteria located in D (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”) while under the influence of alcohol by 0.040% (on the basis of 0.069% of the numerical value from the result of the respiratory measurement at around 16:14).

C. On December 27, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On January 15, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but filed it with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

3.3. was dismissed.

(3) Service on 19. (Service on 19.) [Identification Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and No. 1 through 12]

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion when considering all circumstances, such as the fact that there is no personal injury or injury caused by the drinking driving of the instant case, the risk or possibility of criticism is significantly low, and the driver’s license is absolutely necessary as the deaf part and the family situation, etc.

However, according to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Plaintiff has a history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license to the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on a different premise.