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 June 9, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition for the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff had a history of drinking alcohol by 0.151% on March 17, 2008 and 0.055% on June 7, 2011, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.05% on May 30, 2018, B car was under the influence of alcohol by 0.05% on the street in front of the D Kap parking lot located in the Haan-gun, Hanam-gun, Gyeong-gun, for the reason that “the Plaintiff driven approximately 20 meters on the road along the first line in front of the D Kap parking lot,” on the ground that the driver’s license was revoked (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on July 17, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a simple drinking driver who does not cause any accident, the blood alcohol concentration is low, the fact that the driver’s license is essential in occupation, and the livelihood and reflectability, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretion.

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 in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times and does not confer discretion on whether to revoke the driver’s license.

Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than three times, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.