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 July 4, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B). On January 16, 2018, around 01:35, the Plaintiff: (a) under the influence of alcohol of 0.139% in blood alcohol level; (b) controlled CMW 520D car volume from the Do in front of the 2096-44 MP apartment apartment in Ebri-si in Ebriju City to the 2 complex parking lot in Ebri-gu, 1472-23, YW 520D car volume from the Do in Ebri-si, Chungcheongnam-si, as the Do in Ebri-si, BW.

B. On February 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to a drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff used a substitute driving and a taxi for the drinking of the usual alcoholic beverage; the plaintiff's main performance of the plaintiff's main performance of his duties is required to operate the Y2000 Distribution Center, AFS K2,00 Distribution Center, Inc. working for the plaintiff; the plaintiff's father and 6 months's child who should receive blood injection treatment from 2 to 3 times a week; therefore, the plaintiff must be frequently in the hospital; the plaintiff's motor vehicle driving is essential; the plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigation agency in relation to the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff suffered economic difficulties due to his household liabilities; and the possibility and risk of criticism. In light of the above, the plaintiff's drinking driving of this case was remarkably low, there is a violation of law of deviation from discretion and abuse of discretion.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the reason for the disposition.