1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol content 0.058% on February 5, 2004, and 0.058% on December 1, 2006 under the influence of alcohol content 0.058% on December 1, 2006, and was subject to a disposition to suspend the driver’s license on two occasions, and driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol content 0.059% on May 3, 2015.

B. On May 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 large vehicle and Class 1 ordinary vehicle driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the third influence of alcohol.”

C. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 14, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 8, 13, the purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of various circumstances, including the fact that the Plaintiff operates a pumps company and cannot seek any other occupation due to a disease, and thus, a driver’s license is essential for his family’s livelihood, the fact that both parents need to support their parents, and the blood alcohol concentration is not high. The Defendant’s disposition of this case constitutes a case where he deviates from or abused discretionary authority.

B. Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that where a person who has violated the duty not to drive under the influence of alcohol more than twice again falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license by driving under the influence of alcohol again (Article 93(2)), the driver's license must be inevitably revoked

Therefore, the instant disposition is a binding act under the above provision, and there is no room for discretion to the Defendant, and there is no other circumstance to deem the said disposition unlawful, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is without need to further examine.