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 December 27, 2003, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on the blood alcohol level of 0.114% on December 27, 2003 and under the influence of alcohol level of 0.051 on November 28, 2012, has the power to revoke or suspend the driver’s license in violation of the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol.

B. On January 24, 2020, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.052% of alcohol level around 07:31.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on March 7, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke 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 June 9, 2020, the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal filed against the instant disposition was dismissed on June 9, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (if there is a serial number, each statement including a serial number, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving; (b) the distance of movement is relatively short of 80 meters; (c) the avoidance of drunk driving, such as the use of a usual and acting driving; and (d) the confession; and (c) the driver’s license of a swimming instructor is absolutely necessary when the driver’s license is revoked; and (d) the difficulty of maintaining the livelihood and supporting family members (less, the mother’s health is not good); and (e) the instant disposition is much more than the disadvantage of the Plaintiff that is infringed than the public interest gained by the instant disposition, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing its discretionary authority.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that where a person who was driven under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the same Act drives under the influence of alcohol and thus falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license, the person shall be required to revoke the driver's license. Therefore, there is no room for discretion to decide whether to revoke the license.