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 June 8, 2017, at around 20:50, the Plaintiff driven a c1 ton cargo vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with 0.063% alcohol level on the front of Yangsan City B apartment on the road.

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

The defendant has been found to have been under the influence of alcohol level of at least 0.05% on two occasions before ( February 28, 2007, May 17, 2012) while driving under the influence of alcohol level of at least 0.05%.

C. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) issued a disposition revoking the license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff is a person who had had a two-time drinking driving record but was engaged in a three-time drinking driving; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff was a person who had a three-time drinking driving.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 26, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 to 4 (including a parcel number application), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of all the circumstances, including the Plaintiff’s revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, that the Plaintiff’s business and livelihood is seriously affected, that the Plaintiff is against the truth, and the circumstances and circumstances leading to driving.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, when a person who has driven not less than twice a drunk driving again falls under the grounds for the suspension of a driver's license, the driver's license shall be revoked as necessary. Thus, it is apparent in the law that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license. Thus, there is no problem of deviation or abuse of discretion in the disposition of revocation of a driver's license on the ground that the person

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12042 Decided November 12, 2004, etc.).