1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary driving license on December 27, 2001. However, on September 15, 2002, the Plaintiff was revoked the said driver’s license by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level 0.145%. On June 27, 2003, the Plaintiff was revoked the said driver’s license by driving the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.219%. On July 9, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary driving license on July 2, 2007. However, on November 2, 2008, the Plaintiff was revoked the driver’s license by driving the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.128%.

B. On August 15, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver’s license for ordinary vehicles (B) on September 17, 2009. On April 15, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) around 22:55, while under the influence of alcohol at least 0.157% of the alcohol level; (b) on April 15, 2018, the Plaintiff driven approximately 300 meters of the sports vehicle at Ccoin-do from the place in the inner 6-dong of the Mayang-gu Mayangyang-gu at the same time to the front of the Hanyang-gu 135 meters of the same Gu (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving; and (b) revoked the license of the vehicle driving stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 12, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case; the possibility and risk of criticism on the drinking driving of this case is significantly low; the plaintiff has been driven on an exemplary basis for about 10 years; and the plaintiff must carry cargo lanes, sand, cement, equipment and materials, etc.; therefore, the driver's license of this case is essential to maintain his/her livelihood.