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 January 22, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a Class II ordinary driver’s license (B), Class I ordinary driver’s license on May 4, 2002, Class I large on July 23, 2013, Class I special (large-type check) license on July 23, 201, and Class I special (large-type): on April 14, 2018, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.181% ( blood collection and 0.134% as a result of the respiratory measurement) with a maximum of 3 km driver’s license on May 4, 200 (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On April 27, 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 June 19, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was a model driver for about 18 years, and the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident even through the driving of the case, and the plaintiff used a usual driving, and the plaintiff was more than 40 minutes after the final drinking at the time of the detection of the drinking driving of this case, and the blood alcohol concentration was increased and the driving distance was shorter, and the plaintiff is in charge of the cargo transport in Hanjin Co., Ltd., so it is essential to drive the motor vehicle on duty. The plaintiff actively cooperate and reflects with the investigation agency in relation to the driving of this case, the plaintiff supports two spouse and two children, the plaintiff must actually support the parent who is a patient suffering from high blood pressure and urology, and the plaintiff is economically difficult to do so, considering the fact that the plaintiff engaged in blood donation activities.