1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a B lele-robert-crow vehicle from the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-dong to the BRT front road, as the Busan Gyeyang-si 463 Gaon 463, under the influence of alcohol content 0.129% of the blood alcohol content around 00:07.

B. On August 30, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class II common).

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Oct. 24, 2017).

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 4 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused discretion, considering the following as a whole: (i) whether it is legitimate of the instant disposition; (ii) the Plaintiff is merely a simple drunk driving without any personal or material injury accident; (iii) the Plaintiff used a vicarious driving; (iv) the police investigation; and (v) the advertising company is difficult to manage with two partners; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary for the performance of duties and family life.

According to Article 93(1)1 of the Luxembourg Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1)28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the time when a person drives under the influence of alcohol (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration) shall be determined based on the revocation of the license, and the disposal penalty points shall be mitigated to 110 points for “a person who is an important means to maintain his family’s livelihood or is engaged in transportation service for not less than three years at the time of the disposition as an exemplary driver, or who has received an official commendation from the chief of a police station or higher by causing a traffic accident and arresting an escape driver and does not meet the specified exclusion requirements.” One of the requirements for the exclusion of mitigation, the blood alcohol concentration is 0.12% of the blood alcohol concentration.