1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant, on August 19, 2016, issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I large) as of September 13, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff had a two-time alcohol alcohol level (0.092% of blood alcohol level on June 13, 2004, and 0.087% of blood alcohol level on January 18, 2009) but on July 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.065% on the roads of the C Hospital located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Eul No. 8-5, 7, Eul No. 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful as it deviatess from and abused discretion in light of the following: (a) a driver’s license is essential to maintain family’s livelihood by driving the Plaintiff’s assertion while driving a heavy flag; (b) the Plaintiff took sufficient waters after drinking alcohol; and (c) driving the Plaintiff.

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 a drunk driving in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times, and does not grant discretion as to whether to revoke the driver’s license. Therefore, the defendant must take a disposition to revoke the driver’s license in cases where the driver’s license falls under at least three times, and there is no discretion to take any other measure.

Therefore, the disposition of this case revoking the Plaintiff's driver's license on the ground that the Plaintiff's drinking driving falls under more than three times is not likely to be a deviation or abuse of discretion.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.