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 October 26, 2019, at around 08:57, the Plaintiff driven the B-car volume while under the influence of alcohol of 0.046%, and around 20km from the loan limit of members of Ansan-si to the 56 U.S. 4 U.S. Dolsan-si, the Plaintiff driven the 20km section from the loan limit of members of Ansan-si to the 56 U.S. Dol

B. On September 27, 2005, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of driver's license suspension on the ground that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol 0.072% on the ground that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol 0.072% on the ground that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol 0.076% on June 24, 2008.

C. On December 10, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving at least twice.

On December 26, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 11, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering the fact that no personal or material damage has occurred due to the plaintiff's drinking driving, that the person has used the ordinary driving, that the plaintiff actively cooperates with respect to the detection, that the driver's license is essential due to the characteristics of the business as the company source, that the plaintiff must support his spouse and two children, that the plaintiff is currently against his/her present condition and that he/she would not drive under the influence of alcohol, the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is too harsh to the plaintiff and is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power.

(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 (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Road Traffic Act, determination is made on June 30, 2001.