1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. (1) On April 27, 2001, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol (0.145% of blood alcohol concentration) to revoke the driver’s license on November 12, 2002, to revoke the driver’s license on the drinking (0.131% of blood alcohol concentration) and to revoke the driver’s license on August 22, 2007 to the drinking (0.129% of blood alcohol concentration) on August 22, 2007, while under the influence of alcohol around 22:40% of blood alcohol concentration on April 30, 201, while under the influence of alcohol around 0.056% of blood alcohol concentration, the Plaintiff driven Bing KK car up to approximately 8 km in front of the road in front of the mobile oil station in Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si.

B. On May 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class I common).

On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on July 3, 2018.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is lawful, considering the circumstances of his own breath case-related situation, etc., and thus, it is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.

According to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) and (3) of the Complemented Road Traffic Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc. in a drunken state (referring to a state of blood alcohol level of at least 0.05%). In a case where a person who drives a motor vehicle in violation of the above two times or more falls under the grounds for suspension of a driver's license again, it constitutes the grounds for the necessary revocation of the driver's license. The defendant, an administrative agency, must revoke the driver's license against the plaintiff meeting the above requirements, and there is no problem of abuse of discretion. Thus, the disposition in this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing

3. Conclusion.