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 September 7, 2001, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.193% under the influence of alcohol on September 7, 2001, has the record of revoking the driver’s license due to a violation of the prohibition of drinking.

B. On July 3, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at around 23:39, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.046%.

C. On July 12, 2019, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 common) on the ground of “drinking not less than twice”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on September 24, 2019. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings, including the number of serial numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the driver’s license is absolutely necessary for job seeking in light of the Plaintiff’s past career (10 years and business management position) and family support, difficulty in maintaining livelihood, contribution and volunteer service, etc., when considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was set up on a road near the field where the entire steel can be avoided; and (b) the vehicle was set up on a dangerous road; (c) the distance of movement is shorter than 100 meters; (d) the Plaintiff was lower than 100 meters; (e) there was no damage from drinking driving; (e) the person was using ordinary driving; and (e) there was active cooperation in the detection; and (e) the Plaintiff’s past career (10 years and business management position); and (e) the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion.

B. The judgment does not seem to be illegal and justifiable for the Plaintiff’s drinking driving of this case. [In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s summary order of KRW 1 million as a fine for violating the Road Traffic Act (driving on September 17, 2019).