The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On May 1, 2008, the Plaintiff driven B-car under the influence of alcohol content 0.178% by blood alcohol level (hereinafter “the first drunk driving”).

B. On December 28, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at around 00:55, driving the E-car on the front road located in Da in Isan-si C with a blood alcohol content of 0.073% (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

On January 16, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class driver’s license and first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving again under the influence of alcohol after the first-class driver’s license.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on January 29, 2020, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on February 21, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 3-5, Eul evidence 3-5, and the plaintiff's argument that the disposition of this case is not subject to the application of Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole. Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the person who violated Article 44 (1) again violates Article 44 (1) and again violates Article 93 (1) of the Road Traffic Act shall revoke a driver's license." The above provision applies only to the case where a person who was not subject to the disposition of driver's license because he did not fall under the ground for suspension of driver's license, and where the person was already subject to the previous disposition of driver's license due to a drunk driving, it shall not apply even if the plaintiff was again deleted on June 4, 2008 and deleted a driver's license.