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 October 16, 2003, the Plaintiff has a record of violating the duty of prohibition of drunk driving by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.204% on August 12, 2005 and 0.056% on August 12, 2005.

B. On February 13, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a car B Albain while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.058% at the IC in the New Month of Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

C. On March 1, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary and large dogs) on the ground of the instant drunk driving, which constitutes a violation of the duty of prohibition of the third drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on March 26, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on April 16, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 2 through 8 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no physical or human damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving, the blood alcohol concentration is not high, and the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation into the drunk driving, the Plaintiff’s operation of the relevant vehicle is essential by the truck driver, and economic difficulties are experienced by the truck driver, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), where a person who has violated Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, namely, Article 44(1) of the same Act on at least two occasions (Prohibition of Driving under the influence of alcohol), once again violates the same and thus constitutes a ground for suspension of driver’s license, the defendant must revoke the driver’s license.

The facts acknowledged earlier are relevant.