The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On August 18, 2008, the plaintiff has driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.064% of alcohol level.

On February 17, 2020, at around 00:31, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle chip chip, with the alcohol concentration of 0.073%, while under the influence of alcohol, on the front side of the Gangseo-gun B.

(2) On March 17, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that “the person who has driven a drinking alcohol” re-driving a motor vehicle to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the person who has driven a drinking alcohol” had re-driving the motor vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on April 22, 2020, but was dismissed on June 23, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire argument of the instant disposition is legitimate, and Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter "the relevant provision") amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018 (hereinafter "the amended Road Traffic Act") has strengthened the level of punishment for the revocation of the driver's license when the driver's license was driven under drinking not less than three times, on more than two occasions.

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “the Addenda of this case”) provides that “The provision shall apply to a person who violates Article 44(1) or (2) of the first Road Traffic Act after the enforcement of the amended Road Traffic Act. In such cases, the number of violations shall be calculated on or after June 30, 201.”

The supplementary decree of this case provides for the matters related to the procedure, so it does not bind the court.

In addition, the frequency of violations is extended to not later than 20 years, not more than the nearest time.