1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On October 21, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “A person who violates the prohibition provision on drunk driving again, while under the influence of alcohol at around 0.033% of the blood alcohol level around September 30, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol at around 0.40% of the 0.03% of the blood alcohol level, was driven by the Plaintiff on January 26, 2014.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on December 17, 2019, there was a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration ratio is limited to 0.033%, and the number at the time of the previous violation is only 0.052%, and it is difficult to commute to and from work without a driver’s license due to circumstances, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing the discretion.

B. We examine the judgment, and the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that when a person who violates the same provision again violates the same provision, the driver’s license shall be inevitably revoked, there is no room for the disposition authority to decide whether to revoke the license.

Therefore, as long as the above facts of driving are recognized, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has discretion to cancel the plaintiff's driver's license is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.