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 January 28, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II driver’s license for a motorcycle, on November 18, 200, and received a disposition of suspension of a driver’s license on December 10, 2004 (0.053% of blood alcohol level). On June 2, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired a Class I driver’s license on June 2, 2005. On July 4, 200: (a) around 00:25, the Plaintiff was under the influence of 0.15% of blood alcohol level from the underground parking lot in Bupyeong-si B building to the road in the same city (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On July 18, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of 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 September 10, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that he had no intent to drive under the influence of alcohol. The distance of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case is about 10 meters and about 3 meters from the blocking machine in the parking lot. The plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving in this case. The plaintiff tried to use the substitute driving immediately before driving under the influence of alcohol in this case. The plaintiff was a model driving after December 10, 2004 except for the suspension of a license due to the drinking driving on December 10, 2004. The plaintiff operated the manufacturing company of the pet chain with three employees. The plaintiff operated the manufacturer of the pet chain. The vehicle driving is essential in order to leave without the driver's consent. The plaintiff's family members in this case, as well as the employees of the above company, and the plaintiff was under the support for infant goods and volunteer service, and was selected as the taxpayer in good faith in 2018.