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 March 2, 2003, the Plaintiff was under the influence of driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.088% on March 2, 2003 and with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.104% on July 30, 2007 and violated the duty of prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On April 12, 2019, the Plaintiff driven Cenz E250 automobiles while under the influence of alcohol by 0.075% at the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.075% (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

C. On April 18, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving that constitutes the violation of the duty of prohibition of the third drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on May 17, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on July 9, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 2 through 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no physical or human damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving, the blood alcohol concentration is not high, and the active cooperation was made in the investigation of the drunk driving, the driving distance is merely 300 meters, and the Plaintiff’s operation is essential due to frequent work due to frequent characteristics as a construction business employee, and economic difficulties are experienced, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), a person who violated Article 44(1) of the same Act on at least two occasions (Prohibition against driving under the influence of alcohol) constitutes a ground for suspension of driver’s license in violation of the same proviso.