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

A. On July 5, 2004, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of driver's license revocation on driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.132%, while driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.132%. On May 25, 2007, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of driver's license suspension on driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.098%.

B. On July 27, 2017, around 07:31, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a Dco-type car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.094% while under the influence of alcohol on the front of C at Incheon-si B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

C. On August 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul-1 to 5, 11 to 14 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that there was no accident caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion on human and physical damage caused by the pertinent drunk driving, and that the Plaintiff was found to have been driving on the morning on the following day because the Plaintiff, before the pertinent drunk driving, returned to home after drinking and did not shotly shot, and was found to have been found to have been driving on the following day, the blood alcohol concentration is relatively minor, the Plaintiff led to the confession of the instant blood alcohol level, the Plaintiff was in de facto meeting, and the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license for the sake of maintaining livelihood, and the Plaintiff must support his family and are economically difficult, the instant disposition is deemed to have excessively exceeded the disadvantage of the Plaintiff to be infringed on the public interest obtained from him, and thus should be revoked illegally

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act, a person who drives a drinking vehicle at least twice, on the other hand, the plaintiff is aware of the disposition.

On July 9, 2000, in addition to the power of drinking driving, such as paragraph (1).