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 3, 2020, the Plaintiff driven CMW car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.077% from the 4.7km section in front of the Southern plaza, which is located in the return dong at the time of harmony around 01:28 to the front side of the B apartment at the time of harmony.

B. Meanwhile, on November 2, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending driver’s license on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level 0.069%.

(c)

On August 26, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on August 26, 2020, on the ground that the Plaintiff had a history of driving under influence of alcohol again (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d)

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on October 13, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main drinking point of the plaintiff's assertion alone constitutes a ground for disposition of suspension of license; human and material damage caused by the plaintiff's driving of drinking did not occur; and the plaintiff's driving of driving after a considerable time after drinking could have been perceived as normal; the plaintiff has no record of violation of laws and regulations prior to the traffic accident of this case; and the plaintiff is currently against and again not driving of drinking.

In light of the fact that the driver's license is revoked in need of the driver's license in light of the Plaintiff's business characteristics (the delivery engineer)'s duty, the termination of the Plaintiff's family's living difficult, etc., the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Determination of the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 2 of the same paragraph, and Article 2 of the Addenda (Law No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the instant case").