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 16, 2013, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.171% with a history of violating the duty of prohibition of drunk driving by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

B. On September 11, 2019, around 22:35, the Plaintiff driven Cenz E300 automobiles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.048% on the front side of the apartment complex B in Yangsan-si (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

C. On October 10, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) on the ground of the instant violation of the duty not to drive under influence of alcohol, which constitutes the second violation of the duty not to drive under influence of alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on November 6, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on December 17, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 2 through 6 (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 is no physical damage due to the pertinent drinking driving, and the driving distance is merely 50 meters, the blood alcohol concentration is not high, and the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation into the drinking driving, the Plaintiff’s operation of a business vehicle is essential for business activities as an insurance agency operator, and the economic difficulty is experienced, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary authority.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, where a person who violated Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, i.e., Article 44(1) of the same Act, once again violates the same and thus constitutes a ground for suspension of a driver’s license, the defendant must revoke the driver’s license

According to the above facts, it is apparent that the Plaintiff falls under the above cases.