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 April 25, 2004, the Plaintiff was in violation of the prohibition of drunk driving by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.069% on March 30, 2005 and 0.093% on March 30, 2005.

B. On October 20, 2017, at around 22:50, the Plaintiff driven CM5 car under the influence of alcohol with 0.053% alcohol concentration on the front of the Mayang-gu, Manyang-si.

C. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a notification of the second-class ordinary vehicle driver’s license to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of drunk driving twice or more times, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of drunk driving.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 23, 2018.

On March 23, 2018, the instant written adjudication was served on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 19, 2018, which was before the elapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's business is an occupation of operating equipment during construction. Considering the circumstances and various circumstances of the plaintiff, such as the situation that the plaintiff's living led to the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is excessively harsh and illegal to abuse discretion.

B. In full view of the provisions of Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency must revoke the driver’s license in a case where a person who has violated two or more times the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol once again drives under the influence of alcohol falls under the grounds for suspending

As seen above, the plaintiff violated the prohibition of drinking driving again in the state of not less than twice the power of violating the prohibition of drinking driving. The defendant who is the commissioner of a district police agency shall be the defendant.