1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On September 12, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on May 30, 2003, and acquired a driver’s license (Class I large) on May 30, 2003, and was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.060% on May 30, 2008, and is a trucking business operator using the freezing tower.

B. On June 27, 2019, at around 00:08, the Plaintiff driven a car at a distance of about 500 meters from 0.049% of blood alcohol level to 0.049%, while under the influence of alcohol level, the Plaintiff driven a car at a distance of about 500 meters to 00 meters from the human creative ginseng distance in the Guri-si C cafeteria (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On July 22, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 31, 2019, but filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

9.24. was dismissed.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1 to No. 13]

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was a deviation or abuse of discretion in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) determined that the previous alcoholic beverage was fully aware of the drinking seven hours after drinking; (c) that the drinking alcohol level was caused by the foregoing; (d) there was no personal injury; and (e) blood alcohol level was not subject to the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license pursuant to the former Act before being amended on December 24, 2018; and (e) that the driver’s license was absolutely necessary and family support was absolutely necessary.

However, according to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Plaintiff has a history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license to the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on a different premise.