1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on October 15, 1998, and was subject to the disposition of the driver’s license suspension on April 4, 2004 for a drunk driving (0.067% of blood alcohol level), and the disposition of the driver’s license suspension on August 4, 2007 for a drunk driving (0.084% of blood alcohol level). On May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of the suspension of the driver’s license suspension on August 4, 2007 for a drunk driving (0.084% of blood alcohol level). On May 23:22, 2019, the Plaintiff was under the influence of the alcohol level from the public parking lot of 13-6, 13-6, Masan-si, to the road of 11 ambane to the same city.

B. On June 19, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 13, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff used a usual driving, and tried to use a substitute driving immediately before the driving of the instant drinking, and the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the driving of the instant drinking, and the distance of the driving of the instant drinking is relatively short of 100 meters, and the possibility and risk of criticism for the driving of the instant drinking, and the plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigative agency in relation to the driving of the instant drinking, and the plaintiff is obscencies and reflects the fact that the plaintiff is employed as an engineer at the Logistics Center from D to his spouse after his retirement, and therefore, the driver's license is necessary as well as the driver's license is required, and the second child, who is a patient suffering from a incurable disease, should be transferred to the hospital, and the spouse and two children should be supported.