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 September 5, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired Class 2 ordinary driving licenses, Class 1 ordinary driving licenses on September 30, 1991, and Class 1 large driving licenses on May 18, 2015.

B. On July 13, 2018, around 23:55, the Plaintiff: (a) parked a vehicle from a blood alcohol level of 0.173% at the Plaintiff’s parking lot at the Plaintiff’s residence; (b) was found to have been driven by the police who was dispatched after receiving a report under 112.

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

On May 31, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke all of the Plaintiff’s above driver’s licenses on the ground of Article 93(1)1 or (3) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the instant drinking driving (the date of becoming effective, September 1, 2018; hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on August 24, 2018, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on October 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff’s parking lot using his substitute driving on the day of the instant case, and that the said vehicle was parked and parked to charge the said vehicle at a lower distance from electric shock machines, and that it cannot be ruled out the possibility of excessive measurement because the blood alcohol level was increased at the time when the Plaintiff performed a drinking measurement, and that the Plaintiff was a model driver for about 31 years, and that the Plaintiff’s license was revoked due to the need for the Plaintiff’s occupational activity, resulting in difficulties in family support and livelihood. In light of the above, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case was unlawful as it was an abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshly harsh.

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

C. The judgment-1 punitive administrative disposition has deviates from the scope of discretion by social norms.