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 July 9, 2020, the Plaintiff driven B K7 cars under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.079% at the 1km section from the front of the Kimpo-si Public Health Center of 108 Kimpo-ro to the front of the 1111 business bank, from the front of the Kimpo-si Public Health Center of 108 Kimpo-ro to the front of the 111 business bank.

B. Meanwhile, on June 4, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending driver's license on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level 0.096%.

(c)

On August 3, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary and Class 2 ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 3, 2020, on the ground that the Plaintiff had a history of driving alcohol again.

(d)

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on September 8, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s drinking level was the level of license suspension; that was, the Plaintiff’s drinking level was the level of license suspension; that there was a high level of measurement level due to the Plaintiff’s not having been fully faced with; and that the Plaintiff was not under the influence of drinking less than that of ordinary drinking.

In light of the fact that the intention of drinking driving, such as misunderstanding, was weak, and that the business activities of the Plaintiff were during the current rehabilitation procedure, and thus, the Plaintiff’s business activities are essential. If the driver’s license is revoked, it shall be revoked on the ground that the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, it constitutes an unlawful act of deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

B. Determination of the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda (Law No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant legal provision”) re-enters a person who drives drinking after June 30, 201.