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 August 18, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of September 19, 2015, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.175% on October 1, 2006; (b) the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.152% on May 3, 2010; and (c) the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol ever on two occasions; (d) around August 20:05, 2015, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol 0.073% on the front side of the Geumcheon-gun Sincheon-gu Geumyangcheon-gu, Sincheon-gun, Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-do, for the reason that he was under the influence of alcohol ever on three occasions, on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol.

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on October 28, 2015.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no accident, and the revocation of a driver’s license is very difficult to live, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. (1) According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, when a person who drives a drinking vehicle twice or more re-drivings the driver’s license and falls under the grounds for suspending the driver’s license, the commissioner of the competent district police agency must necessarily revoke the driver’s license. Thus, this is an act

(2) In the instant case, even if the Plaintiff had had had had had had two times of drinking driving prior to the instant case, the Plaintiff was driving of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.073% at around August 2015, 2015, and thus, the instant disposition on the ground thereof is lawful, and there is no problem of deviation from abuse of discretionary power.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.