1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff obtained a Class 2 motorcycle driver's license on December 10, 1982, but revoked the above driver's license on November 2, 1984 with a penalty not paid on November 2, 1984. On May 22, 1986, the plaintiff obtained a Class 2 motorcycle driver's license on May 22, 1986, but caused a traffic accident on August 26, 1986.

The plaintiff obtained a second-class motorcycle driver's license on July 21, 1992, but the driver's license was revoked on December 3, 1992 due to the excess of the second-class motorcycle on April 26, 199, the second-class ordinary driver's license on March 7, 1996, the first-class ordinary driver's license on September 21, 199, and the first-class large driver's license on September 14, 2002, while he was under the influence of 0.09% of blood alcohol concentration on November 9, 1998, the driver's license was revoked due to the excess of the second-class ordinary driver's license on July 7, 2004 and the second-class ordinary driver's license on September 21, 199.

B. On August 17, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver’s license (B), and around 14:35 October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.115% of the blood alcohol level, and was under the influence of alcohol around 14:35 October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff controlled C’s low-speed car volume from the place in the Gocheon-si, Seocheon-si to the industry 7:7 km in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si.

B. On November 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph as of November 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not cause a traffic accident due to the drinking driving of this case, and the plaintiff did not drive under the influence of alcohol for 12 years.