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 December 9, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.163% of blood alcohol level on December 20:05, 2019, driven a portion of approximately 3 km from the front of a golf course located in the wife C in the Gyeonggi-si, to the 0.3km-si, in the city of Gyeonggi-do, from the front of a golf course located in the city of Gyeonggi-do to the 0.163m of the 0m width at the city of Gyeonggi-do, and sustained the victim’s e-operation and the tensions in need of two weeks medical treatment.

B. On January 8, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol above 0.08%, which is the criteria for revoking the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 3, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff had been engaged in exemplary driving for about 19 years without any traffic accident or the influence of drunk driving for about 19 years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and actively cooperated with respect to the detection, and the Plaintiff is unable to use public transportation due to the lack of time to commute to and from work due to his occupational characteristics. The Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license for the purpose of maintaining a livelihood, the Plaintiff supports three children, and the Plaintiff is against the Plaintiff’s re-driving while going against the Plaintiff’s duty of drinking. In light of the fact that the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff and thus, it should be revoked.

(b).