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

A. On September 15, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II ordinary driver’s license (B) on September 15, 2005. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a Category C car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.074% from blood around 02:10 on October 15, 2015, and driven a vehicle driving ahead of the two-lanes at the point of 383 km on the right side of the border road, thereby driving the damaged vehicle onto the right side, and thereby, escaped without taking necessary measures, such as rescueing the victim, after immediately stopping the vehicle.

B. Accordingly, on December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident causing human damage due to drinking driving as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on December 24, 2015, but was dismissed on February 2, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 4 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is minor that the degree of injury to the victim of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff’s agreement was reached only with the victim, and the Plaintiff has been using the luxed driving on the highway. At that time, it was difficult to use the luxed driving on the expressway. At that time, it was difficult for the Plaintiff to use the luxed driving on the expressway because it was inevitable due to the Plaintiff’s open, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was relatively low, and the Plaintiff was likely to have caused the accident due to the luxous driving due to the pharmaceutical nature of marketing conducted by the company, and the driver’s license is revoked because the Plaintiff’s license is essential.