1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On October 13, 2003, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of revocation of a driver’s license on the grounds of a drunk driving (the blood alcohol concentration of 0.134%, personal damage traffic accident) and the disposition of revocation of a driver’s license on October 8, 2008 (the blood alcohol concentration of 0.132%). However, on October 17, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.098% of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.098%, the Plaintiff driven B emerp vehicle at approximately 15 meters on the road front of the D convenience located in Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On December 18, 2017, 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 December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on February 13, 2018.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority, on the ground of the circumstances, etc. subject to the scope of the instant disposition.

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.