1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff, holding a Class I driver’s license, was driving a D car to the front road of the same Gu C in front of a mutually unclaimed restaurant located in the Yong-dong in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.052% of alcohol level around 22:44.

B. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant notified the revocation of the Plaintiff’s Class I driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on March 14, 2017, but the claim was dismissed on May 31, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s alleged truck using the Plaintiff’s claimed truck inevitably requires a driver’s license due to the occupational characteristics of running down and transporting agricultural products; (b) the obligation is hard to economic conditions due to a large amount of money; (c) the family members need to support; and (d) the depth is against the public interest that may be gained by the instant disposition; and (e) the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest that may be gained by the instant

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, when a person who has driven at least twice without permission falls under the grounds for the suspension of a driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol again, the competent Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall necessarily revoke the driver’s license. As such, such administrative disposition is binding without room for discretion.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the plaintiff is found to have violated the Road Traffic Act by driving under the influence of alcohol 0.176% on September 9, 2003, driving under the influence of alcohol 0.213% on July 20, 2007, driving under the influence of alcohol 0.213% on September 26, 2008, and driving under the influence of alcohol 0.187% on September 26, 2008.