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 May 20, 2017, at around 06:25, the Plaintiff driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol on the front side of the Seo-gu Seo-gu Lidong, Seo-gu, Daegu. On the same day, at around 06:33 of the same day, the blood alcohol content was measured to 0.063%.

B. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common) as of July 15, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving on two occasions under the blood alcohol content 0.112% on February 18, 2009, and on August 16, 2010, under the blood alcohol content 0.079% on two occasions.

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said claim on August 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 10 (if there are provisional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content of the Plaintiff’s assertion is insignificant at the suspension level of a driver’s license and there is no personal injury, the Plaintiff was driving with the knowledge that the Plaintiff would have been fright after drinking alcohol after drinking alcohol and diving, which led to this case, and the Plaintiff’s vocational driving is essential, and the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the license is difficult for family’s livelihood, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, when a person who has driven at least twice a alcohol driving again falls under the grounds for suspending the driver’s license, the competent commissioner of the competent district police agency shall necessarily revoke the driver’s license. Thus, in the instant case, the pertinent case is a binding act with no room for discretion. 2) In short, the Plaintiff already 2 times prior to the instant case.