1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff acquired a Class II bicycle driver's license on August 23, 1995, a Class II ordinary driver's license on December 26, 1997, and a Class I ordinary driver's license on April 1, 1999. However, on October 27, 2007, the driver's license was revoked on the ground of personal traffic accidents and drinking (0.071% blood alcohol level). On March 14, 2008, the driver's license was revoked on May 20, 208, and the driver's license was revoked on May 20, 208. On August 15, 2009, the plaintiff obtained a Class II driver's license on September 28, 2009, and again received a disposition of revocation of the driver's license on June 25, 2016 and alcohol level on drinking (the blood alcohol level).

B. On August 19, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) and around June 12, 2019, around 23:12, the Plaintiff: (a) while under the influence of alcohol from a DNA bank located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the front of the same Gu E, the FM7 vehicle volume was approximately 500 meters (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On June 13, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in 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”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but dismissed on August 13, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff used a usual driving, the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case, the distance of the drinking driving of this case is relatively short of 400 meters, the possibility of criticism and danger about the drinking driving of this case is remarkably low, and the plaintiff is related to the drinking driving of this case.