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 August 25, 2017, at around 11:40, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.075% at the front of the mountain patrol box located in the Daejeon Middle-gu.

B. On July 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving at least three times.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on September 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is too harsh to the plaintiff when moving to a large range of 10 meters after leaving a substitute engineer, caused an accident of collision with parked vehicles, and thus, it was discovered that drinking control was conducted. The driving distance is short, the blood alcohol concentration level is relatively minor, and the driver's license is essential for job performance and maintenance of livelihood.

B. Determination: ① The Plaintiff has already been able to revoke the driver’s license on two occasions (0.174% of blood alcohol level on March 5, 2003, 0.174% of blood alcohol level on December 5, 2007), ② No person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol, and the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall drive the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver’s license if the person who has already obtained the driver’s license violates the latter part of Article 44(1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act on two or more occasions and again violates the latter part of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act and falls under the cause of suspension of the driver’s license, in view of the fact that the administrative agency can only revoke the driver’s license pursuant to the above legal provision, and there is no discretion to choose the suspension of the driver’s license. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is a discretionary act.