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 March 26, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary driver’s license and a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on May 20, 2014, respectively. On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.098% in the influence of alcohol level 0.06, and was under the influence of alcohol level 0.098% in the influence of alcohol level, and was under the influence of the police on the road of the Incheon-gun, the Plaintiff was under the influence

B. On June 20, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff had been in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two times or more due to a drunk driving, on the ground that the Plaintiff was a drunk driving.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on September 12, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 12 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. In light of all circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that, as a basic living recipient, the Plaintiff is living in the vicinity while cleaning at the public toilets within the jurisdiction of the Incheon District Rehabilitation Center, and that, while drinking with neighboring residents and drinking alcohol, the Plaintiff’s call was received from the civil petitioner who obstructed the change of the public toilets, and did not resolve it, the Plaintiff’s drinking operation was allowed at the above rehabilitation center due to the petitioner’s call, etc., and the above rehabilitation center was in need of a driver’s license in order to continue to work at the above rehabilitation center for the sake of maintaining the livelihood, and the time when the Plaintiff was running the last drinking driving around August 2003, and the time when the Plaintiff was running the last drinking. In light of all circumstances, there was an error of law that abused and abused the discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, a person who has driven not less than twice a drinking driver shall drive his/her vehicle again to stop his/her driver’s license.