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 April 4, 2007, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.071% of alcohol level.

B. After that, on August 16, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.075% of alcohol level on blood alcohol level on August 22:42, 2019, driven a car by B-rop, and a car by 50 meters from the D hotel located in Sungnam-si C, Sungnam-si, to the same front road.

C. On September 6, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke each driver’s license stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2019, on the ground that the Plaintiff had been driving under the influence of alcohol again (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 November 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that no personal or material damage has occurred due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving and the distance of driving is short, the Plaintiff’s self-driving is going against and again, and the Plaintiff is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol; the Plaintiff is in a position to suspend performance of duties as it is impossible if the license is revoked due to the necessary relationship with the same sex as the Plaintiff’s member is carrying of his/her business equipment and moving to the company; the Plaintiff’s spouse and two children should be supported by the two children; the Plaintiff’s personal loan is difficult to obtain and maintain his/her livelihood due to his/her failure to receive benefits; thus, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing discretionary power.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act are applicable to cases where a person who drives under the influence of alcohol once again drives under the influence of alcohol and thus constitutes grounds for suspending the driver’s license