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 March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff has the history of suspending the driver’s license by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.078%.

B. On August 26, 2019, at around 01:50, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.067% alcohol level.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on September 7, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of “drinking not less than twice”.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on October 29, 2019, which was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, but dismissed on October 29, 2019. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 12 (provisional number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that the actual distance of movement of the Plaintiff’s assertion is shorter than 70 meters, that active cooperation was made with the detection, such as confession, and that the driver’s license of visiting art teachers and senior art workers is absolutely necessary when the driver’s license is revoked, and that there is difficulty in maintaining livelihood, supporting family support, and debt repayment when the driver’s license is revoked, the instant disposition is considerably more than that of the Plaintiff’s disadvantage that is infringed than that of the public interest to be achieved, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing discretionary authority.

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 falls under the grounds for suspension of a driver’s license, it is clear that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver’s license. Thus, in a case where the above provision satisfies the requirements, the disposition agency must have discretion to choose whether to revoke the license.