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 June 9, 1993, the Plaintiff obtained a driver's license for a Class 2 motor vehicle on September 13, 1999, but was subject to the revocation of the driver's license for a motor vehicle on September 13, 199. On March 7, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver's license for a motor vehicle on March 7, 2001, but was on July 27, 2001 (0.114%) while driving a motor vehicle on July 27, 2001, caused a personal traffic accident (three commercial persons) and did not carry out relief measures, etc., and again acquired a Class 1 driver's license for a motor vehicle on July 9, 202 on September 24, 2002 by being subject to the special reduction or exemption of the driver's license for a motor vehicle on October 6, 2003 (0.158% driver's license for a motor vehicle).

B. On October 1, 2018, at around 22:56, the Plaintiff: (a) under the influence of alcohol at least 0.089% of the blood alcohol concentration from the Geumdong-dong Geumdong-dong-si to the front of D, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at least 0.089%; and (b) was under the influence of alcohol at approximately 500 meters of the E-friendly A4 car driving (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On October 13, 2018, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving which falls under at least three times as stated in the preceding paragraph.

The disposition was made to revoke the driver's license stated in the port (hereinafter "the disposition of this case"). D.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case. The plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration level is minor at the time of the drinking driving of this case, and the plaintiff operates a manufacturer using iron from 100 to 150 km.