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 July 19, 2017, at around 03:50, the Plaintiff driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol on the front of the “Tgu Dosan-1 Branch of the Daegu Bank” located in the Masan-dong, Daegu Suwon-gu. On the same day, the Plaintiff was 0.153% of the blood alcohol content as a result of the respiratory measurement conducted by the control police officer around 04:07 on the same day.

B. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking a driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of August 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on October 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number if there is a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's use of a usual driving led to a wrong judgment of the court on the day of the case, which caused the traffic accident in this case, and the plaintiff's driver's license is essential to drive a motor vehicle in his occupation, making it difficult to support his/her family and to repay his/her debts. Considering the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff due to the disposition in this case and the above circumstances, the disposition in this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused his/her discretion.

B. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire evidence presented in the first instance, the public interest is more likely to be achieved than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would suffer, even if considering the degree of disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff and other various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, to the extent that the instant disposition was taken into account. ① Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

2. The individual criteria for revocation shall be zero. The blood alcohol concentration in the state of being drunk.