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 April 25, 2017, at around 01:11, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.131% on the front of the New East Maok-dong Elementary School in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, and on the road under the influence of alcohol level of 0.131%. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on June 13, 2017 regarding the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on August 22, 2017.

C. On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (LA) (Seoul District Court Decision 2017DaMa367). The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is too harsh to the plaintiff when considering the fact that the plaintiff did not cause personal and physical damage due to drinking alcohol, that the substitute engineer was trying to leave the workplace, but the assignment of the substitute engineer was delayed, and that it was inevitable to drive the same as that of the next day, and that the driver's license is essential for job performance and maintenance of livelihood.

B. The instant disposition is based on Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, “the disposition of this case’s revocation of driver’s license”

2. In light of the following: (a) there is no reasonable ground to acknowledge that the above disposition standard is significantly unfair, and there is no other reasonable ground to believe that the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive alcohol; and (b) there is no inevitable circumstance to deem that an administrative agency may not necessarily reduce the disposition on the ground that a driver’s license is necessary for vocational performance or for maintaining the livelihood of his/her family members, etc.