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 November 18, 2006, the Plaintiff has a record of violating the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol by driving a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol with 0.172% of blood alcohol level and 0.05% of blood alcohol level on December 11, 2007.

B. On December 16, 2017, around 00:08, the Plaintiff driven a low-speed car with a blood alcohol level of 0.061% while under the influence of alcohol at the 17-lane of 17,000, as it was transmitted in Seocheon-si.

C. On January 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a notice of the Plaintiff’s revocation of the first class ordinary vehicle driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On February 6, 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 has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s circumstances and various circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to maintain his/her livelihood every day as well as the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s submission of this case’s disposition, the instant disposition is deemed to be an abuse of discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff’s assertion.

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 with the history of violating the prohibition of drinking driving twice. 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.