1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (1) On July 9, 2007, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to revoke the driver’s license as a drinking driving (0.116% of blood alcohol concentration) and a disposition to suspend the driver’s license as a drinking driving (0.053% of blood alcohol concentration) on June 3, 2012, but was under the influence of alcohol of 0.084% of blood alcohol concentration on June 4, 2017, the Plaintiff driven approximately 2 km from the other party to the Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, to the 81st road in front of the 81st day, according to the sannam City’s mountain content.

B. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, which revoked the driver’s license based on Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Sep. 26, 2017).

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviatess from and abused discretion, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a living-based driver, etc., and thus, it should be revoked.

According to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Doll Road Traffic Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol, and where a person who drives a motor vehicle in violation of this case more than twice again constitutes grounds for the suspension of driver's license, it constitutes grounds for the necessary revocation of driver's license. Thus, the defendant, who is an administrative agency, must revoke the driver's license against the plaintiff meeting the above requirements, and there is no problem of abuse of discretionary power. The plaintiff's assertion pointing out the illegality of the disposition in this case

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of grounds.