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 February 25, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driving license (B). On May 8, 2002, the Plaintiff was subject to the suspension of the driver’s license by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.054%. On July 25, 2018, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.151% ( blood collection appraisal) around D in the vicinity of the Jinwon-dong Village in the Youngwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.151% (hereinafter “the instant drinking driving”).

B. On August 21, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the license for driving under the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff tried to use the substitute driving immediately before the driving of this case; the possibility and risk of criticism for the drinking driving of this case was significantly low; the plaintiff is a self-employed person operating food materials distribution business from 02:0-00 to 00, who supplies food materials to the restaurant of customers, and the driver's license is essential for the maintenance of his/her livelihood; the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects with the investigation agency regarding the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff must have the economic assistance of the mother thickness, the patient must support his/her family; the plaintiff must support his/her family; and the plaintiff is financially difficult to do blood donation activities. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is an abuse of discretion and abuse of discretion.

(b) judgment;