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 31, 2016, at around 00:02, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.078% at the front of the Songcheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Macheon-gu, Song-gu, Songwon school.

B. On June 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 ordinary) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s license was “the third drinking driving” (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s two-time drinking driving prior to the date of drinking as indicated in the preceding paragraph (2) (0.104% on September 22, 2003, and 0.059% on April 12, 2002).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on September 20, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, Eul evidence No. 13-3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful because the instant disposition is an abuse of discretion and is an abuse of discretion in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion made it possible for the Plaintiff to take a rest after drinking alcohol and drinking coffee; (b) the traffic distance does not exceed 50 meters; and (c) the Plaintiff is responsible for the livelihood of his family through driving.

3. According to the proviso of Article 93 (1) and Article 93 (2) of the Road Traffic Act as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, when a person who has driven a motor vehicle two or more times drives a motor vehicle again and falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license, the competent Commissioner of the competent Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver's license. Thus, the disposition of this case is a binding act without discretion in the case of this case. The fact that the plaintiff drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.078% which constitutes the grounds for suspension of driver's license even though he had the two times of driving prior to this case, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and there is a discretion to decide whether to revoke the plaintiff's driver's license