The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.129%.

On April 22, 2020, at around 18:40, the Plaintiff driven an electric kick kickboard while under the influence of alcohol of 0.062% of alcohol level on the front of the Sin-gu, Busan Metropolitan City Water Park.

(2) On May 12, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that “the person who has driven a drinking alcohol” re-driving the Plaintiff on May 12, 2020.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 27, 2020, but was dismissed on July 7, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the distance of drinking driving of this case is merely 200 to 300 meters, and the plaintiff is driving a freight truck while working in the construction site as a day-time employee, the car driver's license is necessary, and the driving is an important means to maintain family's livelihood, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it is an abuse of discretionary authority.

Judgment

Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the Commissioner of a Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver's license in a case where the person who drives a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol drives the motor vehicle again while under the influence of alcohol and thus constitutes a ground for suspending

According to the language and text of the above provision, the commissioner of a district police agency shall cancel the driver's license for the person who has driven at least twice, and the commissioner of a district police agency shall not be deemed to have discretion to choose whether to cancel the driver's license.

On 209, the plaintiff around 2009.