1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 00:50 on April 20, 2018, the Plaintiff was found to have driven a D vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.093% of alcohol level on the front of the road located in the Northern-gu B at Port B.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On April 27, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 common) as of May 31, 2018 pursuant to Article 93(1)2 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol at least twice (0.080% of blood alcohol level on July 4, 2012, and 0.19% of blood alcohol level on May 31, 2016).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was a substitute driver after drinking with his friendship. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff moved a vehicle to a level of about five meters for the convenience of the substitute driver who arrived at the roadside, that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the Plaintiff’s operation of the construction site, and that the Plaintiff’s operation of the construction site, etc. is against the Plaintiff’s depth about drinking driving, and that the Plaintiff would not drive a drinking again, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretion.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, the competent Commissioner of the Local Police Agency must grant a driver’s license in a case where a person who has driven at least twice a alcohol again constitutes grounds for suspending a driver’s license.