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 August 27, 2018, at around 22:30, the Plaintiff was found to have driven D vehicles under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.053% at the front of C elementary school located in Daegu Seo-gu B.

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

On October 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II ordinary) as of October 16, 2018 pursuant to Article 93(1)2 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff had two or more times of drinking alcohol (0.078% of blood alcohol level on April 13, 2010, and 0.17% of blood alcohol level on August 13, 2015).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 13, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff used a substitute driving whenever he takes a usual drinking, and that the Plaintiff had contacted a substitute driving company on the day of the instant case, but did not have an article, and thus had been driving again in order to teach a substitute driving engineer as he did not interfere with the flow of traffic or did not occur, due to the instant drinking driving, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessarily required, and the Plaintiff’s business is in charge of the instant pharmaceutical company, and the Plaintiff’s living is very difficult due to the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff is going against the depth of the instant drinking driving and is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol again, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is against the Plaintiff’s discretionary power.