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

A. On November 18, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license.

B. On February 16, 2016, at around 23:30, the Plaintiff driven an E-car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) owned by D, the Plaintiff’s wife, even on the road adjacent to the “C” restaurant located in Ulsan-gu B while under the influence of alcohol by 0.118%.

C. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received the dismissal ruling on May 10, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 19 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of illegality of the plaintiff parked the vehicle of this case in the resident priority parking zone, and the owner of the designated vehicle of the above resident priority parking zone moved the vehicle of this case without any intention of drinking driving, and the distance of the plaintiff's driving is about 2-3 meters since it was merely about the distance of the plaintiff's driving. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition of this case is unlawful. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful. 2) The plaintiff abused the discretion of the resident priority parking zone's moving of the designated vehicle of this case and parked the vehicle of this case without any inevitable reason by threateninging and threatening it, and the distance of the plaintiff's driving is about 2-3 meters, and the plaintiff's business and field management work in F Co., Ltd.