1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff acquired the Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on July 18, 1990 and the Class 1 driver’s license on March 29, 1995 respectively. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff driven approximately 1 km from the front of the 0.134% of the 0.134% alcohol content of the blood alcohol. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a 0.134% alcohol content.

B. On December 9, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the basis of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on April 11, 2017.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 4 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. 이 사건 처분의 적법 여부 ⑴ 원고는, 자신이 어려운 가정환경 속에서 고등학교를 중퇴하고 핸드백을 만드는 일의 보조를 시작으로 온갖 궂은일을 하며 집안의 실질적 가장 역할을 자처하였고 아버지 사망 후에는 홀로 어머니를 부양하고 있는 점, 전날 술을 마시고 평소보다 1시간 이른 새벽 4시경 잠자리에서 일어나 이른 새벽에 출근하다

In full view of the fact that it is impossible to use public transportation and withdrawal of a lodging, and the fact that the full operation of a sun-dried driving will be regarded as fine and that the operation of an stobba, the livelihood of the vehicle is maintained by the transportation business of the vehicle, that it is very difficult to maintain livelihood due to the revocation of all driver's licenses due to the drunk driving, and that it has no record of drinking driving so far, the instant disposition is an abuse or abuse of discretion, and thus, it should be revoked accordingly.

Article 93 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and attached Table 28 of Article 91 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.