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 December 29, 2019, at around 05:35, the Plaintiff driven a 0.03% alcohol level while under the influence of alcohol, and a approximately 1 km section from the roads adjacent to the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Office to the front roads located in Incheon Seo-gu, Incheon.

B. On July 30, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending driver's license on the ground that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol content 0.060%.

C. On January 9, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was making a drunk driving twice or more (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.

On January 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 3, 2020.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the disposition of this case should be determined by comparing and balancing the public interest and private interest of the punitive administrative disposition; that is, a relatively short mobile distance; that is, the usual driving was used on the part of the investigation agency; that is, the blood alcohol concentration was 0.030%, the lowest limit of the penalty standard; that is, it is difficult to conclude that the blood alcohol concentration was at the lower time of the summer; that the blood alcohol concentration was not at the lower time; that is, the degree of infringement of the blood alcohol concentration cannot be excluded; that is, the degree of infringement upon the private interest received by the revocation of the driver's license is excessive; that the plaintiff is a self-employed person engaging in manpower dispatch business; that is, the main business of the plaintiff must be in need of occupational mobility; that is, the situation where it is impossible to perform his/her principal business upon revocation of the license, and that it should be done only because it is impossible.