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 6, 2004, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.079% and blood alcohol 0.077% on August 9, 2004, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, thereby violating the prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On November 25, 2017, at around 07:38, the Plaintiff driven Cho-low-low-car while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.09% on the front of Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul.

C. On December 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a notice of the revocation of Class II ordinary car driving licenses to the Plaintiff on the ground of drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 23, 2018, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal against the instant disposition.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering the circumstances and various circumstances of the Plaintiff’s circumstances, such as making it difficult for the Plaintiff to maintain his/her livelihood due to the instant disposition, the instant disposition is deemed to have abused discretion due to excessive suspicion.

B. In full view of each of the provisions of Article 93 (1) 2 and Article 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 of driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice again drives under the influence of alcohol and thereby constitutes a ground for suspending the driver'

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of drinking driving again in two times, and the Defendant, the commissioner of a district police agency, must only revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver’s license, and there is no illegality of abusing or abusing the discretion of the instant disposition, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.