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 October 22, 2005, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.098% with a blood alcohol level of 0.09% on October 22, 2005, has the power of suspending the driver’s license due to a

B. On December 13, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.072% of alcohol level around 05:32.

C. Accordingly, on December 28, 2019, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant rendered a decision of revocation of the driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) to the Plaintiff on the ground of “drinking not less than twice”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

D. On February 21, 2020, the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal filed against the instant disposition was dismissed on February 21, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving, the distance of movement is relatively short of 500 meters, the confession, etc. actively cooperates in the detection of drunk driving, etc., the driver’s license of a person operating alone is absolutely necessary, and family support (such as the spouse and the third child are not good in health), the maintenance of livelihood, and the difficulty in repayment of debts, etc. when the driver’s license is revoked, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing its discretionary power, since it is much more unfavorable for the Plaintiff, which is contrary to the public interest to be achieved.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, where a person who was driven while under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the same Act again drives while under the influence of alcohol and thus falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license, it is clear that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license. As such, it constitutes the requirements of the aforementioned provision.