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 May 27, 2012, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.073% on May 27, 201 and with a blood alcohol level of 0.128% on May 18, 2017, has the history of suspending and cancelling the driver’s license due to a violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On May 27, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.051% of alcohol level around 21:25.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018; hereinafter the same) on June 5, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common) against the Plaintiff on the ground of “driving on at least three occasions” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

(D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on August 20, 2019. [Grounds for recognition] Nos. 1, 2, 4, 1 through 12, and 12, i.e., entry in the instant disposition and the purport of the entire pleadings, including the number of numbers, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no damage caused by driving under the influence of alcohol of this case, the distance of movement is relatively short of 500 meters, active cooperation was made with the detection matters, such as confession, etc., the driver’s license for door-to-door business is absolutely necessary and family support at the time of revocation of the driver’s license, and difficulties in maintaining livelihood, etc., the disposition of this case is much more unfavorable than that of the Plaintiff’s public interest to be achieved, and thus, is unlawful by abusing

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the former Road Traffic Act, where a person who drives under the influence of alcohol and violates Article 44(1) of the same Act two times or more, once again drives under the influence of alcohol and thus constitutes a ground for the suspension of driver’s license, there is no room for discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver’s license.