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 17, 2018, at around 03:25, the Plaintiff was found to have driven B vehicles while under the influence of 0.065% on the road in front of the Suwon-dong Police Station located in Suwon-gu, Daegu.

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

On March 27, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of April 29, 2018 pursuant to Article 93(1)2 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol on at least two occasions (0.110% of blood alcohol level on November 11, 2001, and 0.072% of blood alcohol level on March 9, 2009).

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 June 19, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had made efforts to avoid driving under the influence of alcohol, such as leaving a vehicle at home or using a substitute driving, etc.; (b) the Plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation after the detection of drunk driving; (c) the Plaintiff would not drive under the influence of alcohol again; (d) the driving of the instant case would not interfere with the flow of traffic or accident; (e) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary for the performance of his duties; (c) the Plaintiff’s livelihood is difficult due to the instant disposition; (d) the Plaintiff contributed to the ordinary welfare hall, etc.; and (e) made voluntary activities, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was against the Plaintiff’s discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. Determination of the Road Traffic Act Article 93.