1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (1) On November 24, 2004, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to revoke a driver’s license on the grounds of a drunk driving (0.102% of blood alcohol concentration) and a disposition to suspend a driver’s license on April 29, 2017. However, on May 7, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.065% of blood alcohol concentration on May 7, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a B observer car from Nam-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the roads front the Seocho-dong Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On June 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class I common).

On August 25, 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 November 1, 2017.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority, on the ground of the circumstances, etc. subject to the scope of the instant disposition.

According to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Doll Road Traffic Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol, and where a person who drives a motor vehicle in violation of this case more than twice again constitutes grounds for the suspension of driver's license, it constitutes grounds for the necessary revocation of driver's license. Thus, the defendant, who is an administrative agency, must revoke the driver's license against the plaintiff meeting the above requirements, and there is no problem of abuse of discretionary power. The plaintiff's assertion pointing out the illegality of the disposition in this case

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of grounds.