1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

A. On March 10, 2002, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.066% by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff driven a B-car and was subject to a disposition of suspension of driver's license from the Defendant, and on August 29, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of revocation of driver's license by driving C-car while under the influence of alcohol content 0.141% by blood alcohol content.

B. On December 16, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.065% by blood, the Plaintiff driven D-car on the front road in front of the Han Chang Chang-gun, the Ham Chang-gu, the Ham Chang-gu, the Ham Chang-gu, the Kim Chang-dong (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On January 14, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking all Class I ordinary driving licenses and Class II ordinary driving licenses to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant driven the instant drunk driving twice or more times (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On January 31, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 31, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings of this case is legitimate due to the plaintiff's assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the driving distance is short, and the plaintiff recognized the plaintiff's mistake, reflects the plaintiff's intention not to drive under the influence of alcohol again, and the plaintiff's driver's license is essential due to the nature of his/her duties as a self-employed person who is engaged in driving business for mobility disadvantaged persons, and the driver's license is revoked, if the driver's license is revoked, it is difficult to maintain his/her livelihood, and the plaintiff has a family member to support and experienced economic difficulties. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it exceeds the scope of discretion or abused discretion.

Judgment

The proviso to Article 93 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and subparagraph 2 of the same paragraph shall apply again to a person who drives under the influence of alcohol.