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 July 21, 2002, the Plaintiff driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.076% on July 21, 2002 and blood alcohol concentration of 0.073% on February 25, 2005, and thus, has the power of suspending two times a motor vehicle driving license for violating the prohibition of drinking.

B. On January 21, 2020, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.046% alcohol level of 0.00%.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on February 22, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common) to the Plaintiff on the ground of “drinking not less than twice”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) An administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on April 14, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, and the purport of the entire pleadings, including branch numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that there was no damage caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion, that the distance of movement is relatively short of 400 meters, that actively cooperates in the detection of drunk driving, such as confession, etc., and that the driver’s license to provide high-priced equipment and goods in wholesale at the hub of a Metropolitan City is absolutely absolutely necessary at the mobile phone agency’s mobile phone branch, and that there was difficulty in maintaining livelihood, family support, debt repayment, donation delivery, volunteer service, organ donation registration, etc. when the driver’s license is revoked, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority, since the disadvantage of the Plaintiff, which is much more than that of the public interest gained by the instant disposition, is much greater than that of the Plaintiff.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act requires the revocation of a driver’s license where a person who was driven while under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the same Act again drives while under the influence of alcohol and thus constitutes the ground for suspension of the driver’s license.