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 May 23, 2017, at around 08:40, the Plaintiff driven a B car with blood alcohol concentration of 0.067% under the influence of alcohol on the front side of the Hongcheon-gun Hongcheon-gu Hongcheon-gu Hongcheon-do Hongcheon-do, Hongcheon-do.

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

On June 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had a history of drinking alcohol twice or more even before driving of the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on August 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 25, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that human and physical accidents have not occurred due to driving under the influence of alcohol in this case; (b) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s business; and (c) the Plaintiff was not able to drive since her was able to drive after her night, the instant disposition is unlawful

B. According to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol, and where a person who drives a motor vehicle in violation of this case more than twice again constitutes grounds for the suspension of a driver's license, it constitutes grounds for the necessary revocation of a driver's license. The defendant, who is an administrative agency, must revoke the driver's license against the plaintiff meeting the above requirements, and there is no problem of abuse of discretionary power. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion pointing out the illegality of the disposition in this case

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