1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The following facts are found to be without dispute between the parties or in accordance with the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. On July 27, 2017, at around 01:20 on July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff is driving a passenger car in the state of 0.105% of blood alcohol concentration on the side of the Busan Seodong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City.

On August 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver's license stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff on the ground of the above drunk driving (hereinafter "instant disposition").

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on October 11, 2017.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion ① Road Traffic Act and the Enforcement Rules thereof, the commissioner of a district police agency shall notify the parties to the disposition of the contents of the disposition and the deadline for presenting their opinions before rendering the disposition. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the disposition in this case.

② The Plaintiff driven a passenger car at the time of drinking, and the revocation of the Plaintiff’s license for two-wheeled automobiles and the second-class driver’s license for a motorcycle is unlawful.

③ On the day of the instant case, the Plaintiff used a proxy driving in the nearest distance, and attempted to teach a proxy driver via a mobile phone app, but did not recognize the present location on the mobile phone, and was inevitably driven in order to not obstruct the passage of other vehicles, and the distance from driving is short, and the blood alcohol level also exceeds the license standard, and the Plaintiff is serving as a supervisory position of a construction company that must return to the construction site of the nation to the extent of three times a week.