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

A. On September 11, 1980, the Plaintiff acquired a private taxi transport business license as “B” and operated a private taxi transport business after acquiring a private taxi transport license.

B. On February 18, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol 0.198%, the Plaintiff driven the above private taxi and operated it on the road in front of the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Ansan-si, causing a traffic accident that shocks the amount of two cars parked in that place, and the Gyeonggi Local Police Agency revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on April 21, 2015.

C. Accordingly, on June 4, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as above, pursuant to Articles 85(1)37 and 87(1)8 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 43(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 59(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 85(1) of the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that where a passenger transport service provider falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the license, permission, authorization, or registration may be revoked, or the license or registration shall be revoked in the case of subparagraphs 5, 8, 39, and 41 for a fixed period not exceeding six months: Provided, That a license or registration shall be revoked. Accordingly, with respect to the grounds that do not fall under the above grounds for revocation, a discretionary power may be exercised to choose a disposition of revocation or suspension of business for a period not exceeding six months. Nevertheless, Article 43(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a license or registration shall be revoked.

2. Individual standards:

(a)35. In this case: