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 December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver’s license. On December 25, 2016, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.056% of the blood alcohol level around 16:22 on December 25, 2016, and controlled it to the police on the front of the cafeteria located in Incheon-gun B.

B. On March 20, 2004, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on January 17, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff, while driving under the influence of alcohol on October 4, 2006, the blood alcohol level of 0.083%, and the blood alcohol level of 0.162% on September 29, 201, was in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act twice or more.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on February 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. In light of the overall circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion-type company and anti-state company, drinking a small amount of alcohol, and drinking a large amount of time after drinking, and the Plaintiff was forced to return home while making a fishing, and the Plaintiff was forced to drive a scam for a considerable time after drinking, and it was inevitable for the Plaintiff to be unable to assign a proxy engineer due to the characteristics of the external seaside, it is not the intended driving, but the driver’s license is essential for the performance of occupation, and the Plaintiff was under threat of livelihood due to the instant disposition. In light of the overall circumstances, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of the discretionary authority by excessively excessive to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, a person who has driven not less than twice a alcohol driver again constitutes grounds for suspension of driver’s license.