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

A. On June 11, 2017, at around 05:55, the Plaintiff driven a sports cargo vehicle in the C front of Busan City, which was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.075%.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

The defendant has previously been driven and discovered at least two times ( May 3, 2005, November 9, 2007) with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.05%.

C. On June 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) issued a disposition revoking the license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff is a person who had had a two-time drinking driving record but was engaged in a three-time drinking driving; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff was a person who had a three-time drinking driving.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 5, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 27 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of all the circumstances, including the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not cause any traffic accident due to drinking alcohol; (b) the blood alcohol concentration level is relatively high; and (c) the car driver’s license is essential to the Plaintiff’s business; and (d) the revocation of the car driver’s license causes enormous hindrance to the livelihood of the Plaintiff.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, when a person who has driven not less than twice a drunk driving again falls under the grounds for the suspension of a driver’s license, the driver’s license should be revoked as necessary. Thus, it is obvious that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the license, and therefore, the disposition of revocation of the driver’s license for reasons that the person falls under the requirements of Article 93(1)