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 September 13, 2017, around 03:20 on September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol at the front of the Gancheon-dong, Macheon-gu, Daegu. On the same day, at around 03:28, the blood alcohol content was measured at 0.085% as a result of the pulmonary measurement conducted by the police officer around 03:28 on the same day.

B. On September 22, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common) as of October 25, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff had a 0.055% blood alcohol content on August 17, 2002, and had a two-time drinking driving record on February 24, 2003 by driving each under the influence of 0.07% blood alcohol content on a 0.07%.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on September 28, 2017, but no judgment of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission was made by the date on which 60 days elapsed from the date of closing argument of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 11, Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including each number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration in the Plaintiff’s assertion is minor and driving distance is short of a driver’s license suspension level, and there is no damage to the Plaintiff’s occupation, and the Plaintiff’s license is revoked, which makes it difficult for his family members to live due to his death, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it is an abuse of discretionary power.

B. Determination 1) According to the proviso of Article 93(1) and Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, when a person who has driven at least twice a drunk driving again falls under the grounds for suspending a driver’s license, the competent Commissioner of the competent Local Police Agency shall necessarily revoke the driver’s license. Thus, in the instant case, it is a binding act with no room for discretion. 2) In the event of the instant case, the Plaintiff had had a two-time driving record prior to the instant case, but around 03:20 on September 13, 2017.