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 April 2, 1992, the Plaintiff acquired Class 2 ordinary driving licenses, Class 1 ordinary driving licenses on March 25, 1995, Class 1 large driving licenses on May 20, 1996, and Class 1 special driving licenses on December 19, 196, respectively.

B. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.103% from blood alcohol level, driven a franchising vehicle B at approximately 700 meters from the vicinity of the Han Heavy Industries located in Busan Young-do to the front road located in the same Cheongdo-dong located in the same Gu.

C. On February 15, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on February 27, 2017, but was dismissed on April 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s license was revoked in an economic difficult situation, such as ① going on a large channel on the day of the instant case and trying to drive as an agent, but coming to run the instant drinking vehicle due to weather; (b) the Plaintiff maintained his livelihood by truck driving; and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s license was revoked under the economic difficult circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s support to her parents with poor body and the responsibility for the child support of two sons, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused the Plaintiff’s right of discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff’s livelihood.

B. Whether the judicial administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is intended to achieve by the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and by the relevant disposition.