1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I large) as of December 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff had the two-time alcohol alcohol level (0.159% of blood alcohol level on July 4, 2002; and 0.068% of blood alcohol level on December 13, 2003); (b) on November 21 and 35, 2015, the Defendant was under the influence of 0.052% of blood alcohol level on the wing ground that the Plaintiff’s two-time alcohol level was under the influence of alcohol; and (c) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked on December 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 8, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had maintained his family’s livelihood by driving his truck. The revocation of the driver’s license makes it difficult for his family to maintain their livelihood; the distance of the Plaintiff’s drunk driving is about 30 meters; the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level is about 0.052%; the Plaintiff did not run a drunk driving before the instant drunk driving on December 2003; and the Plaintiff performed volunteer activities such as traffic adjustment for 20 years as an exemplary driver. In light of the above, the instant disposition was unlawful since it deviates from and abused the discretionary authority, in violation of the principle of proportionality.

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 is revoked at least three times in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and does not grant the Defendant discretion as to whether to revoke the driver’s license. As such, when the Plaintiff drives a drunk vehicle on three or more occasions, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license in accordance with Article 93(1)2 of the