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 August 28, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a vehicle B with approximately 11 km of 0.105% of alcohol content on February 1, 2009, 0.077% on March 16, 2009, and 0.072% on December 6, 2014, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.06% on July 17, 2018, while the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol content of 0.06% on the street in front of the residence of C at the time of Jinju, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle at approximately 46 km in front of the first sentence of the Air Force Education Headquarters located in front of the domicile at the same time.”

B. On September 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 19, Eul evidence 1, 5, 6, 10 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an abuse of discretionary power in light of the fact that the Plaintiff is essential to drive a job and his family’s livelihood, etc.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where the driver’s license in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times and does not confer discretion on whether to revoke the driver’s license.

Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than three times, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.