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 October 6, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license, but was subject to the disposition of suspension of driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.059% on September 9, 2009. On June 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of revocation of driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.059% on blood alcohol level. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on July 29, 2015.

B. On February 22, 2018, while under the influence of alcohol at 00:04, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at 0.097%, the Plaintiff was under the influence of driving approximately KRW 500 meters of the D Kan-Fing Vehicle from the roads adjacent to the Bupyeong-si, Busan to the roads adjacent to the same city (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

C. On March 27, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving, which is the third time for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 24, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been using a normal driving, and the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the pertinent drunk driving, and there was low possibility and risk of criticism on the instant drunk driving, and the Plaintiff’s driving is essential for the purpose of maintaining livelihood as a dailyl worker, and the blood alcohol concentration is minor at the time of the instant drunk driving, and the Plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects to investigation agencies, and the Plaintiff suffers from economic difficulties to support one’s child who is a spouse and a university student. In light of the above, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary power and abuse.

B. Determinations in this case