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On July 24, 2007, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.130% and the driver’s license was revoked. On November 30, 2008, the Plaintiff had the power of driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.06% and suspending the driver’s license.

B. On April 20, 2018, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at around 21:15, driven a vehicle with about 10 meters from the front of the Korean Won Won in Gyeonggi-gun, to the same place, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.081% of alcohol content.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (class 2 ordinary) against the Plaintiff on the date stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal within a legitimate period, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s occupation and the inevitable nature of driving for the Plaintiff’s livelihood and family support, the circumstances and motive of drinking driving, degree of drinking, driving distance, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it exceeded and abused discretion.

B. According to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver's license in a case where a person who has violated the prohibition on drinking at least twice the driver's license again drives the vehicle and constitutes a ground for the suspension of the driver's license. As seen earlier, the defendant who is the commissioner of the Local Police Agency must revoke the driver's license without any discretion to the defendant, and there is no discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver's license.

Therefore, there is no violation of law that deviates from or abused the discretion of the instant disposition, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3...