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

A. On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a D low alcohol level of 0.089% in front of the C2:25 Sinung Singu C (B); (b) changed the course to one lane while driving a two-lane, and (c) went away without taking any measure, while the Plaintiff was driving a D low alcohol level of 0.089% in front of the Cangu (hereinafter referred to as “B”); (d) changed the course to one lane; (b) changed the course to another; and (c) did not perform the duty of safe driving to verify whether a vehicle exists and to change course; and (d) escaped without taking any measure.

B. On February 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a notice of each revocation of Class 1 driver’s license and Class 2 driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on February 2, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s given a notice of each revocation of Class 1 driver’s license and Class 2 driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff’s given a notice of each revocation of Class 1 driver’s license and Class 2 driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff’s given a notice of each revocation of the driver’s license

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on April 17, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul 1 through 3, 5 through 11 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 철근배근공 철근콘크리트 구조물 건축에 앞서 철근을 엮는 작업 담당자를 일�는다.

Considering the circumstances and various circumstances of the plaintiff, such as the situation of the plaintiff's living is difficult due to the nature of the duty to commute to and from work at night, the instant disposition is illegal to abuse of discretion due to excessively harsh discretion.

(b) Attached Form of relevant statutes;

(c).