1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On July 8, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a B food car at approximately 2 km from the road front of Pyeongtaek-si in front of Pyeongtaek-si, while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.174% around 01:40 on July 8, 2017.

B. On July 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class I common).

On August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on October 17, 2017.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 4 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following: (i) the Plaintiff’s instant disposition is lawful; (ii) the Plaintiff is merely a mere mere drunk driving without any personal or material injury accident; (iii) the Plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigation agency; and (iv) the family life system is responsible in an economically difficult situation; and (iv) the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused discretion.

According to Article 93(1)1 of the Luxembourg Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1)28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the time when a person drives a vehicle in a drunken state (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol level) shall be determined on the basis of the revocation of the license, and the disposition penalty points shall be mitigated to 110 points for “a person who has been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station or higher for at least three years at the time of the disposition as an exemplary driver, or who has been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station after causing a traffic accident and arresting an escape driver, and who does not meet the specified exclusion requirements.” One of the requirements for exclusion from mitigation states that “in the event that a person drives a vehicle in excess of 0.12% of blood alcohol level, in the event of personal damage during the drunk driving, where a person causes a traffic accident during the past five years.”