1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired a Class II ordinary driver’s license on September 4, 2009. However, on July 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license on a full-time driving (0.168% of blood alcohol level) and acquired Class II ordinary driver’s license on April 10, 2015, again, on April 10, 2015, and on October 14, 2018, the Plaintiff driven approximately 1k-meter of EKan-Fing vehicle under the influence of blood alcohol level 0.154% ( blood collection) on the road at Sihhh-si, Sih-si, Sihn-si, Sin-si, and the road before D (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On October 31, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff used a usual driving, the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff actively cooperate and reflects with the investigation agency in relation to the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff, as infant care teacher, must use public transportation from home to workplace, take one hour and move up to 3 times, and he must work to go home, and the plaintiff must go home in his home, and he must drive in his home when he takes part. As such, the driver's license is essential, and the plaintiff must support not only her husband who became aware of the path and 3 years of age, but also 7 years of age as well as her husband who became aware of the path and 7 years of age, and bear household debts, there is an error of deviation from discretion and abuse of discretion in the disposition of this case.

B. The judgment 1 punitive administrative disposition is discretionary in terms of social norms.