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 March 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was given a fine of 30 points on December 1, 2017, with the median line, and a cumulative point of 130 points for one year after receiving 100 points for a drunk alcohol level of 0.079% on February 21, 2018.”

B. On May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on June 12, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is essential to drive a job and his family’s livelihood, etc., the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power by harshly doing so.

(1) Determination (1) Article 93 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91 (1) and attached Table 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

1. General standards:

(1) According to paragraph (1) of this section, the commissioner of a district police agency may cancel the driver's license when the penalty points or cumulative points reach at least 121 points per year.

(2) In the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health team, each of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ① the frequent traffic accidents caused by the drinking driving today, and the results thereof are harsh, so as to prevent traffic accidents caused by the drinking driving, and the public interest needs to be ensured by strictly regulating the driving of drinking, and the revocation of the driver’s license on the grounds of the drinking driving should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent the drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be emphasized. The Plaintiff has a history of driving the drinking driving even before February 21, 2018, and ② the Plaintiff has been given a point of a central wning, which is a serious violation of the laws and regulations and may cause large-scale accidents on December 1, 2017