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 October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.13% under the influence of alcohol on October 2, 2018, has the record of revoking the driver’s license due to a violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at around 22:11, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.069%.

C. Accordingly, on June 19, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large-scale) on the ground of “driving twice or more” by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

D. On August 25, 2020, the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal filed against the instant disposition was dismissed on August 25, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that a person takes a water surface within three or more hours; (b) he/she committed an act of driving under the influence of alcohol; (c) there was no damage caused by the pertinent drinking driving; (d) the 500-meter mobile distance was relatively short; (d) actively cooperates in the detection of drinking driving, such as a confession; (e) the business entity’s business and the distance from his/her workplace is absolutely necessary; and (d) there was difficulty in maintaining livelihood, family support, debt repayment; and (e) visits to, and financial support for, a mother at the time of revocation of the driver’s license; and (e) there was an exemplary life, such as receiving a commendation within the company, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act requires the revocation of a driver’s license where a person who was driven while under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the same Act again drives while under the influence of alcohol and thus constitutes the ground for suspension of the driver’s license.