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 6, 199, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 2 driver’s license (B), a Class 2 driver’s license on May 11, 1999, a Class 1 driver’s license on June 9, 199, and a Class 1 driver’s license on June 9, 199, and received a disposition to suspend the driver’s license on October 13, 2002 (0.097%) and then was subject to a disposition to suspend the driver’s license on July 15, 2018, around 15:54, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.13% ( blood collection appraisal) in front of Sungnam-si C Apartment-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On August 4, 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; (b) issued a disposition revoking 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 October 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has no record of violating the Road Traffic Act since November 22, 2002, the plaintiff used his/her ordinary driving, the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through his/her ordinary driving, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration level is minor at the time of his/her own driving, the plaintiff needs to drive his/her own business in his/her own business, the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects with an investigative agency in relation to his/her own driving of this case, the plaintiff must support his/her spouse and his/her wife, the plaintiff must take into account the above circumstances of the plaintiff in a criminal trial for his/her drinking driving of this case, and the fine for his/her own reduction of one million won is determined after being sentenced to a reduction of the summary order, and there is an error of deviation or abuse of discretion in the disposition of this case.

B. Determination 1.