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 10, 2016, the Plaintiff received 100 points of points as to drinking (0.067% of blood alcohol level) and received 100 points of points on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a criminal case as retaliationed driving on October 17 of the same year.

B. On December 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of January 7, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s accumulated points exceeds 121 points per year, on the ground that the Defendant’s accumulated points exceed 121 points.

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 July 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is an abuse of discretionary power due to the Plaintiff’s excessive burden on the part of the Plaintiff, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff was stopping to resist a car driver who obstructs his course; and (b) the Plaintiff did not engage in retaliationing driving; (c) the Plaintiff recognized the driving of drinking alcohol; (d) the Plaintiff was taking advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff’s clibing and taking a bath for the driver of the other vehicle; (e) the revocation of the driver’s license due to the instant disposition was very difficult for the Plaintiff and his family members to live; and (e) the Plaintiff’

B. 1) Determination 1) A decision on the existence of the grounds for disposition is not binding upon the court of the lawsuit in the administrative litigation, but the facts established in the relevant criminal trial are not significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation. Thus, the facts of the relevant criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant administrative litigation.