1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (1) On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff driven a B QM6 car at approximately 1 km from the Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si, Young-si, 1517 U.S., 30 U.S., 1517 U.S., under the influence of alcohol on March 19, 2018, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.147%.

At the time, the Plaintiff was driving in the direction of the salone-salone distance from the salone-salone-salone road in front of the above Young-salone road, and caused physical damage that shocks the central separation-salone for the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. On April 5, 2018, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class I common).

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20357, Apr. 17, 2018).

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 4 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) Whether the instant disposition is legitimate or not, the Plaintiff’s disposition is unlawful since it abused the discretionary power, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Plaintiff sent a scambling driver on the day of the instant case to return home with the scambling driver and scam on the scambling driver; (b) he left the scambing driver on the scambing vehicle; (c) he was able to drive the scam on the scam; (d) he faithfully used the scambling driver; (e) faithfully performed the instant investigation; and (e) distributed the scambling site with others

According to Article 93 (1) 1 of the Doll Road Traffic Act and Article 91 (1) 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the time of operating in the state of drinking (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration) shall be determined based on the cancellation of the license, and shall be disposed of as an exemplary driver.