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 August 3, 2003, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.137% on August 3, 2003 and with a blood alcohol level of 0.124% on October 10, 2013, has the record of revocation of the driver’s license due to a violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On July 14, 2019, at around 10:13, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.048% alcohol level.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on July 26, 2019, the Defendant’s decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large-scale) on the ground of “driving on at least two occasions” (Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.

D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on October 1, 2019. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through 12 (which has a serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no damage caused by driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, and the actual distance of movement remains less than 4 km, active cooperation was made with the detection matters, such as confession, etc., the driver’s license of cargo vehicle is absolutely necessary, family support, difficulty in maintaining livelihood, contribution to the police administration, and voluntary activities are carried out, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing its discretionary power, since it is much more unfavorable for the Plaintiff, which is contrary to the public interest to achieve the pertinent disposition, and thus, it is against the law by abusing its discretionary power.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, where a person who was driven under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the same Act drives under the influence of alcohol again and falls under the grounds for suspension of driver’s license, there is room for discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver’s license.