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 January 30, 2016, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.132% with a blood alcohol level on January 30, 2016, has the record of revoking the driver’s license due to a violation of the prohibition of drinking.

B. On October 25, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at around 22:55, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.064%.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on December 7, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the driver’s license (class 2 common) on the ground of “dacting not less than twice”.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

D. On February 18, 2020, the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal filed against the instant disposition was dismissed on February 18, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the following: (a) there was no fact of damage caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion, the distance of movement is relatively short of 1km; (b) the person in charge of ordinary driving at the time of drinking alcohol or used the agency driving; (c) the person actively cooperates in the detection of drinking driving by confession, etc.; (d) the driver’s license is absolutely necessary for job-seeking activities; and (e) there is difficulty in preparing against the emergency situation of driving to the local community without good health when the driver’s license is revoked; and (e) the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is much more than that of the public interest to achieve the instant disposition, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing the discretionary authority.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, 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 falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license, it is clear that there is no room for discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver's license. As such, the above provision is applicable.