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 January 14, 2012, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.151% in blood.

B. After that, on February 23, 2020, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.071% in blood at around 16:37, the Plaintiff was driving a B windowtom car in front of the D cafeteria located in Ansan-si, and driving a volume of 1m in front of the D cafeteria located in Ansan-si.

(c)

On March 20, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on March 20, 2020, on the ground that the Plaintiff had a history of driving under the influence of drinking (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d)

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on July 24, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was driving while drinking alcohol because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to refuse the Plaintiff’s request for the movement parking of the main owner who was next to the Plaintiff, and the distance of the vehicle is limited to one meter, the Plaintiff’s driving did not occur due to the Plaintiff’s drinking, the Plaintiff’s re-acquisition of a driver’s license in 2013, and there was no record of driving alcohol or causing a traffic accident, and the Plaintiff is against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would not drive the vehicle again.

C. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is running a business importing and selling leather processing drugs, the Plaintiff’s operation is essential due to the nature of the business, and the driver’s license is essential to support the spouse and two children of the sick and wounded in the U.S., the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff and is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused discretionary power.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2)2 of the same Act constitute grounds for the suspension of a driver’s license by a person who drives a drinking again.