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 20, 2019, at around 21:30, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.072% at the front of the entrance of Taedae Park-gu, Busan Metropolitan City-do.

(hereinafter “Drinked Driving of this case”)

B. On July 30, 2003, the Plaintiff was found to have been driving at 0.082% of alcohol concentration in blood around 22:22.

C. On November 01, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first and second ordinary drivers’ license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a person who driven the second or second alcohol due to the instant drunk driving, and notified the Plaintiff to B.

On December 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on February 18, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, and Eul's 1 through 4 (including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is conducting visual sales business, and the driver's license is required for such business.

원고는 아픈 어머니를 뵙고 와서 울적한 마음에 소주 2잔을 마신 것뿐이다.

The plaintiff did not drive under the influence of alcohol for 16 years since 2003, and the amendment of the Road Traffic Act and subordinate statutes is too harsh to take the instant disposition.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) and Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), when a person who drives under the influence of alcohol once again drives under the influence of alcohol after June 30, 201 falls under the grounds for the suspension of driver’s license, the commissioner of the competent local police agency has the duty to revoke the driver’s

Therefore, the plaintiff is driving after June 30, 2001.