1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On July 30, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition of a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to have been drunk (0.075%) on May 22, 2014, on the ground that: (a) around 10:00, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.057% of the blood alcohol concentration on July 13, 2019; (b) the Plaintiff driven the B car under the influence of alcohol at around 0.057% of the blood alcohol concentration on the street in front of the building in Yongsan-gu, Busan Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On August 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on September 10, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 9 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was found to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s occupational driver’s license is essential, that there was no intention to drive drinking, and that his family’s livelihood, etc., the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where the driver’s license in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under more than twice, thereby not granting discretion as to whether to revoke the driver’s license.

Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than twice, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.