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 August 11, 2003, the Plaintiff violated the duty of prohibition of drunk driving under Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with 0.08% of blood alcohol, 0.078% of blood alcohol level on January 11, 2006, and 0.213% of blood alcohol level on January 11, 2017.

B. On November 2, 2018, around 01:05, the Plaintiff driven a FM5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol with approximately 2 km alcohol concentration of about 0.094% at the section of approximately 2 km from the Dolet in front of the Gu apartment E-dong in the same city.

C. On November 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1, Class 1, and Class 2) of the Plaintiff on the ground of drinking on at least three occasions pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on December 23, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 22, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1 to No. 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff used the substitute driving for ordinary drinking, and the plaintiff used the substitute driving even at the time of the drinking driving of this case, and the driver of the substitute driving used the substitute driving for his house, and the driver was not driving at the house but driving at the place near the house.

The plaintiff has a disability of the sixth degree of disability.

The plaintiff is engaged in the installation of communication facilities, vicarious driving, and consignment service, and the driver's license is essential for performing his/her duties, and the cancellation of the driver's license becomes difficult to live.

The plaintiff has a considerable amount of debt, and there is a child with wife and her children so that economic difficulty is very difficult.

Considering the above circumstances, the instant disposition was a deviation or abuse of discretion.