1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 13, 2003, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.071% and was subject to a disposition of driver’s license suspension. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.082% and was subject to a disposition of driver’s license suspension.

B. On March 16, 2018, at around 22:43, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles on the street in the training-dong, Seodong-gu, Jinju-si, and the 0.064% of alcohol level, while under the influence of alcohol, (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

C. On March 26, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority, taking into account the following: (a) while the Plaintiff got a taxi at the time of the instant drunk driving, the Plaintiff was forced to drive the taxi without any choice to take work due to his or her no taxi; (b) the driving distance is merely 1 km and there is no personal injury due to the instant drunk driving; and (c) the Plaintiff’s occupation requires the Plaintiff’s driver’s license if the driver’s license is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is difficult

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2)2 of the same Act, the commissioner of a district police agency must inevitably revoke a driver’s license in all cases where a person who has driven at least twice under the influence of alcohol drives again and falls under the grounds for suspension of driver’s license. Thus, the instant disposition falling under such cases is a binding act without any room for discretion.

Therefore, the defendant is not present.