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 April 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.093% with a history of violating the duty of prohibition of drunk driving by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

B. On August 10, 2019, at around 10:20, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.067% at the front of the 886 Twit-gu, Nam-gu, Incheon. (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On August 31, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I, Class II, Class II, and Class II motor vehicles) on the ground of the instant drunk driving, which constitutes a violation of the duty of prohibition of drunk driving, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of prohibition of drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on September 16, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 22, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's Nos. 4 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) as a self-employed person operating a business trip team set forth in the grounds for mitigation of disposition as his/her operating constitutes a means of livelihood; (b) such circumstances are not considered; (c) economic difficulties are not taken into account; and there are family members to support; and (d) blood alcohol concentration is relatively low, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, where a person who violated Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, i.e., Article 44(1) of the same Act, once again violates the same and thus constitutes a ground for suspension of a driver’s license, the defendant must revoke the driver’s license

According to the above facts, it is apparent that the Plaintiff falls under the above cases.