A. On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired Class I ordinary drivers’ licenses and Class II small drivers’ licenses on January 10, 2012.

B. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant: “Around July 17, 2014, at the entrance of the C hotel parking lot located in B in B in the East Sea, the Defendant driven a DNA passenger car (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”) under the influence of alcohol of 0.138% at the level of alcohol content at the entrance of the C hotel parking lot located in B in B in the East Sea; (b) issued a disposition revoking all of the Plaintiff’s instant Class I ordinary and Class II driver’s licenses pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was rendered a dismissal ruling on October 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-6, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the reason for the disposition of this case was unlawful for the plaintiff to revoke the first-class ordinary driver's license related to the above reason in addition to the cancellation of the first-class ordinary driver's license related to the above reason.

B. Determination 1) In principle, where one person obtains a multiple driver’s license, it shall be separately handled in revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8850, Nov. 16, 1995). However, in cases where the grounds for revocation are not pertaining to a specific license, but pertaining to a person who has obtained a driver’s license, or is common to another license, or is related to a person who has obtained a driver’s license, or where the scope of a vehicle that can be driven with a driver’s license is wide, and all vehicles are allowed to drive with a driver’s license with a different driver’s license, all of them may be revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du1031, Mar. 24,