1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 10, 2018, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.074% of blood alcohol level around 05:50 on June 10, 2018, driven the EMW car at a approximately 8km section in front of the D dialogue station located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-si, Kimpo-si.

Accordingly, on June 29, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of July 26, 2018 pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter “former Road Traffic Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had three-time alcohol (0.134% of blood alcohol level on May 27, 2012; 0.081% of blood alcohol level on June 24, 2014; 0.096% of blood alcohol level on April 26, 2015) on the ground that the Plaintiff had a re-driving.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition in the entirety of the pleadings and the purport of the instant disposition is as follows: (a) there is no dispute; (b) the instant disposition is unlawful, taking into account the following: (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff has been using an acting driver at the time of the instant case’s assignment; (d) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license engaged in driving duty is essential; and (e) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is revoked; and (e) the Plaintiff’s failure to maintain his family’s livelihood upon revocation of the driver’s license, the instant disposition is deemed to have exceeded and abused the discretionary authority.

Judgment

According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the former Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, where a person who has driven at least twice a drunk driving falls under the grounds for the suspension of driver's license by driving again, the competent Commissioner of the Local Police Agency must revoke the driver's license. Thus, the instant disposition is a binding act without any room for discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the discretion to decide whether to revoke the plaintiff's driver's license is the defendant is without merit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff .