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 February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.119% and blood alcohol 0.122% on March 7, 2013, and was found to have been driven and discovered while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

B. On December 2, 2017, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff driven C Poter Cargo Vehicles while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.078% at the front of the Pririju City B.

C. On December 22, 2017, the Defendant rendered a notice of revocation of the first class ordinary vehicle driver’s license to the Plaintiff on the ground of drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On February 6, 2018, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal against the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1, 2 through 4 (including each number in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s person engaged in the construction business, who is essential to drive the automobile in light of its business contents, thereby losing his livelihood due to the instant disposition. The instant disposition is deemed to have abused discretion by excessively harshly treating it.

B. In full view of each of the provisions of Article 93(1)2 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver's license in a case where a person who has violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice again drives under the influence of alcohol and thereby falls under the grounds for suspending the driver'

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of drinking driving again two times, and the Defendant, the commissioner of a district police agency, must only revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver’s license, and there is no illegality of abusing the discretion of the instant disposition, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion.