The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 3, 2020, at around 20:35, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.054% at the front of the Seosan-si B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On May 6, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol in the instant case even though he had been under the influence of alcohol in the past (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 23, 2020.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol before driving the motor vehicle in this case.

[1. 19 November 19, 2003 (the blood alcohol concentration 0.054%). 【The ground for recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 9, Eul's 1, 2, 4, and 13 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The disposition of this case is an abuse of discretionary power by taking into account all circumstances, including the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the flow of traffic was obstructed or the occurrence of a traffic accident occurred; (b) active cooperation was made in the investigation of the drinking driving after the driving of this case; (c) the exposed drinking water was merely the level of license suspension; (d) the illegal drinking water was sent to an agent at the time but should be maintained to a level of one hour; (c) the previous drinking driving power was caused by a contingent driving; (d) the previous drinking driving power was worked before 17 years; (d) the Plaintiff was working as a water purifier manager; and (e) the Plaintiff was in need of driving for livelihood; and (e) there were family members to support the pertinent drinking water.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, a person shall be deemed to have refused to drive alcohol or to measure alcohol.