1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained a Class I ordinary driver’s license on June 12, 2009, and a Class II motorcycle driver’s license on May 22, 2012, but is driving on July 12, 2014 (0.158% of blood alcohol concentration).

After the driver's license was revoked on December 30, 2015 due to the cause of personal traffic accident, the driver's license was revoked. On June 10, 2019, the driver's license was acquired on December 30, 2015, and on June 10, 2019, on June 10, 201, the driver's license was handed over at least 0.11% under the influence of alcohol level of CK5 meters in the state of under the influence of alcohol level of 0.1% on the roads prior to the ecological tunnel (hereinafter referred to as "driving of this case").

B. On July 2, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 29, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 20, 21, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff uses a usual driving, the plaintiff does not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects with the investigation agency in relation to the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff is a D's agent who is engaged in the business and uses underground water to take away from the site due to the characteristics of his duties, so he must drive and move directly, and the vehicle driving is essential for the company located in Asan Si, and the company located in Asan Si to leave the place of residence, and it is economically difficult for the plaintiff to take away from the place of residence. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is deviating from discretionary power.