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 February 17, 2002, the Plaintiff was under the influence of driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.129% on February 17, 2002, and 0.067% on July 3, 2004, and violated the duty of prohibiting drinking.

B. On December 18, 2018, the Plaintiff driven D’s horse in front of C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.09% (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On January 16, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) on the ground of the instant violation of the duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, which constitutes the violation of the duty of prohibition of driving under the third place (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on January 22, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 5, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 2, Eul 2, 4, 7, and 8 (including branch numbers), the purport of all entries and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no physical and human damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving, the blood alcohol concentration is not high, and the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking driving, and the Plaintiff’s operation of the vehicle is essential for commuting to and from work at a frequent private teaching institute, and economic difficulties are experienced, etc., the instant disposition is beyond 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 the provisions of Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, i.e., Article 44(1) of the same Act on at least two occasions again becomes a ground for the suspension of a driver’s license, the defendant must revoke the driver’s license.

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff is in the above cases.