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 November 22, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired a Class-I ordinary car driving license (B), but was subject to the revocation of the license by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.101% on March 15, 2017, but was subject to the disposition of revocation of the license for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.10% on March 15, 2017, but was mitigated as a disposition of suspension of the driver’s license for 110 days

B. On July 25, 2018, around 23:22, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of about 0.101% in blood alcohol level from the half-month area in Ansan-si, Ansan-si to the front of the opening area of the public truck depot in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”). The Plaintiff driven approximately 1km in volume of CM3 automobiles (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On July 17, 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 August 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was returning to his country by using the substitute driving immediately before the driving of the pertinent case. However, the problem of fee rate is the wind to narrow the two-lane section from the road where the two-lane section is narrow as the one-lane section due to the problem of the fee, and the plaintiff tried to use the plaintiff's vehicle again, but there is no response, and the plaintiff inevitably driven on the road because it is difficult to continue to stop on the road. Thus, the possibility and risk of criticism about the driving of the instant case is considerably low, the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the driving of the instant case, the plaintiff used the ordinary driving, and the plaintiff used the substitute driving even before the driving of the instant case.