1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff holding a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license has caused a traffic accident involving physical damage by shocking the benz’s automobiles parked while driving a DNA observer car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.108% at the C point in the C point in Macheon City, B around 00:20.

B. On April 2, 2019, the Defendant notified the revocation of the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On April 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling of dismissal on June 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition (not falling under driving under the Road Traffic Act) did not fall under the "driving" under the Road Traffic Act, since the plaintiff was involved in the same kind of accident and meal for about 20 years since the date of the accident, while driving on behalf of the plaintiff, and caused a traffic accident that causes the plaintiff's shock of the damaged vehicle in front of the plaintiff's vehicle without the driver's intention to drive on a lock, the plaintiff was driving on the top of the driver's vehicle. The plaintiff was not a "driving" under the Road Traffic Act, since the driver's license of this case was abused on October 20, 1998, and was under model driving for about 20 years and 5 months since the acquisition of the driver's license of this case, the substitute driver was driving on the back of the driver's vehicle, his spouse, parent, 200 million won and 300 million won, and 80 billion won of his/her family members' livelihood should still be repaid.