1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) as of October 29, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s alcohol level was 0.072% of blood alcohol level (0.072% of blood alcohol level on January 26, 2007, and 0.076% of October 9, 208) on September 15, 2017, under the influence of alcohol level C at least 0.075% of blood alcohol level on the front road located in Tong Young-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 29, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In order for the Plaintiff to continue to operate the fishing market and maintain his family’s livelihood, driver’s license is essential, and Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

1. F. In light of the fact that the instant disposition constitutes grounds for mitigation of the disposition standards prescribed in the above, it is unlawful as it excessively deviates from and abused discretion.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where a drunk driving in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times, and does not grant discretion as to whether to revoke the driver’s license. Therefore, the defendant must take a disposition to revoke the driver’s license in cases where the driver’s license falls under at least three times, and there is no discretion to take any other measure.

Therefore, the disposition of this case revoking the Plaintiff's driver's license on the ground that the Plaintiff's drinking driving falls under more than three times is not likely to be a deviation or abuse of discretion.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit.