1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 25, 199, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class 2 motorcycle), and acquired a driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) on July 12, 2001. On January 3, 2008, the Plaintiff was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.098%.

B. On March 14, 2020, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 03:24% of the blood alcohol concentration, driven a F rocketing car at a distance of about 30 meters from the front of “C” to the front of E in D, located in D, while driving at a level of alcohol level (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On March 31, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drinking driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On May 25, 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.

7.7. The dismissal was made.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, Evidence 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 the distance of movement is relatively short and there is no personal or material injury caused by the instant drunk driving, the use of a flat acting driving and active cooperation with the police investigation, and the absolute necessity of the driver’s license by engaging in agriculture and the economic situation.

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 rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.