1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff holding a Class 1 driver’s license and a large-scale driver’s license was driving a C trucking lane with approximately 35 km section at around the front of the Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, under the influence of alcohol level of 0.095%, while under the influence of alcohol level around 07:50%.

B. On August 25, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s first class license for large-scale vehicles and large-scale vehicles on the ground of the above drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on November 1, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s alleged blood alcohol concentration of less than 0.100%, which is the criteria for revocation of the license, and the support should be provided to the Plaintiff, including the spouse and elementary school students under cancer diagnosis, which makes it difficult for all family members to maintain their livelihood when the license is revoked, and it has been doing exemplary driving for 10 years after 2006, etc., the instant disposition is more unfavorable than that of the public interest to be gained due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, when a person who has driven at least twice without permission falls under the grounds for the suspension of a driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol again, the competent Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall necessarily revoke the driver’s license. As such, such administrative disposition is binding without room for discretion.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 7 (including each number), the plaintiff is driving under the influence of alcohol 0.142% on September 25, 2003, while driving under the influence of alcohol 0.124% on December 2, 2006.