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 21, 2002, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.085% on July 21, 2002, and 0.086% on December 11, 2003, has the power of suspending two times a motor vehicle driver’s license by violating the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol.

B. On December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.082% of alcohol level around 05:53.

C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018; hereinafter the same) on March 18, 2019, the Defendant issued a notice of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) to the Plaintiff on the ground of “driving on at least three occasions” as “the instant disposition”.

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 April 23, 2019. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 14 (which has a serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that there was no damage caused by the Plaintiff’s alleged drunk driving, and that there was an active cooperation in the detection of CCTV installation business, etc., the driver’s license is absolutely necessary, such as CCTV installation business, family support, difficulty in maintaining livelihood, talent donation and volunteer activities, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, since it considerably exceeds the disadvantage of the Plaintiff that is contrary to the public interest to be achieved.

B. Determination of the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the former Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) provides that where a person, while under the influence of alcohol, who violated Article 44(1) of the same Act twice or more times, drives a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, thereby falling under the grounds for the suspension of a driver’s license, he/she shall be required to revoke the driver’s license.