1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a company member. On March 24, 1995, the plaintiff acquired a driver's license (Class II motorcycle) on May 1, 2004, and was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol 0.158% on May 1, 2004, and the driver's license was revoked on June 10, 2004.

8. 4. A driver's license (class 1 common) was acquired on December 16, 2005, and was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol 0.136% on blood alcohol level, and the driver's license was revoked on January 25, 2006, and on February 2, 2007, the driver's license (class 1 common) was acquired.

B. On April 16, 2019, at around 23:30, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at least 0.074% of blood alcohol content, driven a d pertaining-free car with a distance of about 40 meters from B to C in front of the Southern-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under drinking not less than three times due to the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 17, 2019, but filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

7.9. The dismissal was made.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 11]

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant disposition was an unlawful act of deviation or abuse of discretionary power due to excessive suspicion. However, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license should be revoked in a case where a person who has driven at least twice a drunk driving again falls under the grounds for suspension of license due to a drunk driving under Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018).

There is no room for discretion to choose whether to cancel the driver's license to the defendant, who is the disposition agency.

Therefore, since the deviation or abuse of discretionary power in the disposition of this case is not an issue, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.