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 February 26, 2020, the Plaintiff driven a E-motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.062% of blood alcohol concentration in the section of about 50 meters from the front of C in Pyeongtaek-si B to the front of Pyeongtaek-si D.

B. Meanwhile, on January 16, 2006, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending driver's license on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.094%, and blood alcohol concentration 0.059% on January 17, 2009.

C. On March 13, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license of Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, Class 2, Class 2, and Class 2, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving again under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on May 12, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff has no record of driving under the influence of alcohol exceeding 0.1%, and that the Plaintiff is the only means to maintain his family’s livelihood, that is, the amount of drinking alcohol at the time is only 2 residues, that the distance of driving under the influence of alcohol is only 50 meters, and that human and physical damage caused by the driving under the influence of alcohol did not occur, the mitigation criteria under attached Table 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act should have been applied to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the disposition of this case, which did not apply, should be revoked because it is too harsh to the plaintiff, and there is an error of law that deviates from and abused discretion.

B. Determination of Article 93(1) proviso and Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 2 of the Addenda (Law No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant legal provision”) are driving under the influence of alcohol after June 30, 201.