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 14, 2019, at around 08:05, the Plaintiff driven a DNA window-car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.048% at the front of the warehouse, while under the influence of alcohol level C in front of the warehouse.

(hereinafter referred to as “dacting driving of this case”). B.

On July 27, 2009, the Plaintiff was found to have been under the influence of alcohol with 0.056% of alcohol content in blood on July 27, 2009 and 0.182% of alcohol content in blood on August 20, 2017.

C. On August 9, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class I ordinary, Class II ordinary, and Class II motorcycle pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a person driving under the second or higher influence of alcohol due to the instant drunk driving.

On September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for an adjudication seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the said petition was dismissed on October 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 4, and each entry of Eul's 1 through 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s drinking driving did not cause damage, and the Plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation.

The Plaintiff’s livelihood is threatened with the maintenance of the disposition of this case as it maintains his livelihood in the course of gas delivery services.

Considering these circumstances, given that the Plaintiff’s private interest infringed on the public interest that would be achieved by the instant disposition is considerably large, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) and Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), when a person who drives under the influence of alcohol once again drives under the influence of alcohol after June 30, 201 falls under the grounds for the suspension of driver’s license, the commissioner of the competent district police agency shall