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 November 5, 2017, at around 23:30, when the Plaintiff had a two-time drinking power (the suspension of a license for driving under the influence of alcohol on March 15, 2002 and January 25, 2003), the Plaintiff driven a DNA low-pollution vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.098% on the front of the Cjuju station located in the Cjuju City B (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On November 24, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (the Plaintiff’s license for large vehicles No. 1, Class 1, class 1, large dogs, salvage, class 2, class 2, class 2, and class 2) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 11, 2017, but was dismissed on January 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 6, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① the Plaintiff’s state of drinking at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, the Plaintiff’s disposition in this case exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s state of drinking was not serious; (b) the Plaintiff’s operation of a vehicle on his business (in the cargo terminal, it is essential to operate the vehicle as an individual entrepreneur);

(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, where a person who violated at least twice the provision of Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, namely, Article 44(1) of the same Act, once again constitutes a ground for suspension of a driver’s license, the defendant must revoke the driver’

According to the above facts, it is apparent that the Plaintiff falls under the above cases. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the Defendant has a discretionary power to decide whether to revoke it, considering the Plaintiff’s circumstances, etc.

On a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3...