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

A. On July 16, 2017, at around 16:30, the Plaintiff driven a B-vehicle on the front side of the ship distance on the north-west side of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun while under the influence of alcohol by 0.050% of alcohol level.

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

The defendant has been found to have been driving in the previous three times ( June 14, 2003, October 30, 2003, September 26, 2005) while driving in the state of blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.05%.

C. On August 9, 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 was a person who had been driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice but was engaged in drinking not less than three times; and (b) the Plaintiff constitutes a person who had been driving under the influence of alcohol at least twice.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 19, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful in light of all the circumstances, including the Plaintiff’s state of drinking at the time, and the Plaintiff did not cause any traffic accident due to drinking driving, and the revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license would result in enormous impediment to livelihood, and the distance of driving and the amount of drinking alcohol, etc., the instant disposition was deemed to have escaped from and abused discretion.

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 shall be revoked as necessary. Thus, it is apparent in the law that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license, and therefore, the disposition of revocation of the driver's license for reasons that the person falls under the requirements of the above Article of the