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 March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff received 100 points of points as the Plaintiff was found to have been charged as retaliationed driving. On December 5, 2012, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.059% at the front of the Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.059% (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”) and was under the influence of alcohol 100 points of points.

B. On January 16, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of February 14, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] 1-C(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Defendant’s calculated total amount exceeds 121 points per year.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the vehicle stops on the road due to a sudden breakdown while the Plaintiff was unable to drive a substitute driving, and the substitute driving engineer also led to the driving of the instant drinking vehicle to move the vehicle to a safe place while leaving the site; the driving of the instant drinking system does not interfere with or cause any accident due to the instant drinking; the Plaintiff is driving a scar at the real estate consulting company in order to compensate for living expenses as university students, while working at the real estate consulting company, and the Plaintiff is economically difficult due to the instant disposition; and the history of the Plaintiff’s existing traffic offense at the time of driving the stoba, etc., the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 punitive administrative disposition is socially accepted.