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 December 20, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.076% from blood alcohol level around 01:00, driven a 2 km section from the front of the 333 sperm Station to the front of the D gas station located in G in Gyeonggi-si, as the 33rd M&D Station was in the middle of the 0.076%, and the front of the D gas station located in Gyeonggi-gu.

B. On January 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending the driver’s license on the ground that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol content 0.051%.

C. On January 8, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was making a drunk driving twice or more (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.

On January 29, 2020, 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 March 10, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the intent of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no personal or material injury due to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving; (b) the driving distance is a relatively short distance of 2 km; (c) the driving distance was used as a usual proxy driving; (d) active cooperation was made with respect to the detection; (c) the Plaintiff is a self-employed person, who is in need of a driver’s license due to the nature of his duties; (d) the Plaintiff is obliged to support the Plaintiff’s bad health; and (e) the Plaintiff is currently against and again seeking not to drive under the influence of alcohol; and (e) the instant disposition in question is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority due to excessive abuse of discretion

(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, a person driving under the influence of alcohol after June 30, 201.