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 June 24, 2005, the Plaintiff was found to have been in the jurisdiction of the Incheon Central Police Station, and on December 22, 2007, at the Kimpo Police Station, to have been discovered by drinking.

B. On October 18, 2019, at around 23:50, the Plaintiff driven a B vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.039% on the right side of the Jeju Seo-gu Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Island, and was discovered to police officers.

C. On October 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license for Class I large, Class I ordinary, and Class II motor vehicles by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had driven more than two times as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On February 7, 2020, the plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 10, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 12 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was driving in the five hours after drinking the 1st of so-called so-called, and that the amendment of the Road Traffic Act led to the detection of at least the opher alcohol level.

Therefore, there was no intention of drinking driving.

The plaintiff is driving active fish tank vehicles, and is engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution business of fishery products, and the driver's license is essential for the maintenance of livelihood.

Considering such circumstances and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s drinking driving, the instant disposition is unlawful, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the instant disposition.

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

C. 1) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have had no intention to drive under the influence of alcohol, so long as the Plaintiff was engaged in drinking alcohol and driving under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff had been well aware of the amendment of the Road Traffic Act, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that it was well known. 2) According to the relevant laws and regulations, the Defendant has a history of driving under the influence of alcohol after June 30, 201.