The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On May 2, 2015, at around 19:07, the Plaintiff driven a two-wheeled vehicle B 0.206% of blood alcohol content, and was found to have driven approximately 1 km from the upper end of the Sinan-gun in the front end of the Sin-gun in the front end of the Sin-gun in the front end of the Dongn-gun in the front end of the Dongn-gun in the front end of the Sin-gun in the same Gun to the front end of the Namn-ri in the front end of the Eupn-ri in

B. Although the Plaintiff had three times of drinking alcohol (0.081% of blood alcohol level on February 20, 2002, 0.188% of blood alcohol level on June 6, 2002, 0.18% of blood alcohol level on June 16, 2006, and 0.078% of blood alcohol level on June 16, 2006), the Defendant already stated the evidence No. 14 on May 22, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a person who once driven under the influence of alcohol on three or more occasions, the Plaintiff was revoked his/her driver’s license on the ground that he/she driven under the influence of alcohol level on three or more occasions.

On June 29, 2015, the instant disposition was issued to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license.

C. On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on August 11, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, each entry of evidence Nos. 7 through 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was guilty of the relevant criminal case (the instant case violating the Road Traffic Act of this court 2015Da7888) on December 8, 2015 and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and then withdrawn the allegation of mistake on the second day for pleading of facts at this court.

The plaintiff is collecting the abolition and maintaining the livelihood of the plaintiff, and it is essential for the Otoba in order to collect the abolition.

Therefore, since the disposition of this case revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is too harsh, the disposition of this case is in violation of law that deviates from and abused discretion.

3. Determination

(a) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes;

B. Specific determination is made under Article 93 of the Road Traffic Act.