1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On August 10, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to have driven a B car under the influence of alcohol 0.06% of alcohol concentration on the floor of the Seongbuk-gu C Parking Lot and from May 18, 2005 to the front floor of D building on February 18, 2009 (including blood alcohol concentration 0.11%). However, on May 23, 2018, the Defendant driven a B car under the influence of alcohol 0.06% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On November 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the instant disposition is a simple drinking driver who did not cause any damage to the Plaintiff’s assertion, that is, the drinking level is not high, that is, the driving in the occupation is essential, that is in depth against the family life, etc., the instant disposition constitutes a deviation and abuse of discretionary authority.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where the driver’s license in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times and does not confer discretion on whether to revoke the driver’s license.

Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than three times, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.