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 August 5, 2018, while under the influence of alcohol at around 04:25, the Plaintiff is driving a car of 0.075% of blood alcohol level, and is proceeding with the Macro Ecuador 350 vehicle, which violated the Macropoter 215, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with the light of the 215 eropo-dong shooting distance, the Plaintiff is proceeding with the eroposium of the Dongdaemun-gu Cultural Park.

Pursuant to green signals, the car conflicted with the passenger car in order to go from the bank to the bank of the Hanyang-ro Intersection in the boundary of the " Hanyang-ro 5 A".

C, which was on board a passenger car with a flag in Ireland, has suffered at least two weeks of medical treatment.

B. The Defendant is driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol above 0.05% by the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level as a standard for the prohibition of drunk driving.

On August 24, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the revocation of Class 1 ordinary car driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 24, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident that causes the injury to others.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 17, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 1, 5 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s circumstances and various circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she works for a company providing stock information and has a lot of business trips for customer counseling, making it essential to drive a motor vehicle on his/her business. In light of the Plaintiff’s circumstances and various circumstances, the instant disposition was excessively harsh and abused discretion.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power shall be determined by the content of the offense as the ground for the disposition, and the public interest and any other ancillary thereto.