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 January 1, 2017, around 02:03, the Plaintiff driven a DNA cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.084% on the roads front of convenience points in Gwangju-si, Gyeonggi-do.

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

On November 24, 2001, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on January 16, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol 0.075%, was driving each under the influence of blood alcohol 0.133% on July 8, 2003, and again was driving under the influence of alcohol 0.13% on two occasions.

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff had no record of driving under the influence of alcohol for about 15 years before the date of the pertinent drunk driving after the previous drunk driving, and the plaintiff is engaged in the fishery products transport business, and the plaintiff is in need of a driver's license due to business characteristics, and the plaintiff is responsible for his family's livelihood, including his father with a disability of class 2.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, when a person who drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol twice or more falls under the grounds for the suspension of a driver’s license, it is necessary to revoke the driver’s license, and it is apparent in the law that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the license. As such, in the disposition of revocation of a driver’s license on the ground that the person who drives a vehicle falls under the requirements of the above Article, there is no deviation or abuse of discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12042 delivered on November 12, 2004). In addition, the plaintiff has the ability to drive under the influence of drinking twice.