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 12, 2017, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff driven a passenger car volume on the front road located in Busan-gu B while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.069%.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

In the previous two times ( October 20, 2001, May 20, 2003), the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.05% and was discovered.

C. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) issued a disposition revoking the license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff is a person who had had a two-time drinking driving record but was engaged in a three-time drinking driving; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff was a person who had a three-time drinking driving.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 5, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, 13 evidence, Eul's 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff did not cause any traffic accident due to drinking alcohol, the higher drinking value, the fact that the revocation of the driver’s license would seriously interfere with the livelihood when the driver’s license was revoked, and the amount of drinking alcohol, etc., the instant disposition is deemed to have deviated from and abused discretion.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, when a person who has driven not less than twice a drunk driving again falls under the grounds for the suspension of a driver's license, the driver's license shall be revoked as necessary. Thus, it is apparent in the law that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license. Thus, there is no problem of deviation or abuse of discretion in the disposition of revocation of a driver's license on the ground that the person

Supreme Court Decision 2004. Nov. 1, 2004