The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 18, 2019, at around 20:30 on August 18, 2019, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol content 0.117% with approximately two meters of the front road B in Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

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

On October 21, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary drivers’ licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving under Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

C. On December 24, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said request was dismissed on February 18, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s emergency evacuation vehicle was parked in approximately two meters upon D’s request to move the parked vehicle, and the Plaintiff driven a short distance to move the parked vehicle inevitably to a safe place in order to protect his/her or another’s life or physical benefit and protection of his/her body. Thus, it constitutes an emergency evacuation. 2) The Plaintiff’s deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority recognized that the Plaintiff driven a drinking-free vehicle, and it is in profoundly against this, and the Plaintiff’s driving distance is less than 2 meters, and the time is less than 1 second, the Plaintiff’s driving distance is less than 2 meters, and the circumstances leading up to the instant driving, such as the Plaintiff’s movement cannot disregard D’s demand. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff supports his/her spouse and children, the instant disposition constitutes a deviation and abuse of discretionary authority, making it too harsh to the Plaintiff.

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

C. Even if the first administrative judgment on the non-existence of the grounds for disposition is not bound by the fact-finding in the criminal trial, the same facts are already finalized.