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 February 22, 200, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license, and was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol 0.143% on July 27, 2004. On September 29, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) and was subject to the suspension of the driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol 0.061% on November 18, 2007.

B. At around 10:57 on December 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.091% in blood alcohol level from the Geong-gun Handong apartment to the front of the same Yangyang-gun High School, controlled Crekikis Corresponding around 1.5 km (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

C. On January 22, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of a drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph; and (b) revoked the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration level is minor at the time of the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff used the substitute driving even before the driving of this case; the possibility and risk of criticism on the drinking driving of this case was significantly low; the plaintiff's vehicle driving license is essential for purchasing food materials every day while operating the restaurant, raising the customer into the vehicle, and attending the school (6km in distance). The plaintiff actively cooperate and reflected with the investigative agency about the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff is his wife.