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

A. At around 19:50 on December 7, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a B motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.129%; (b) went beyond the center line at the risk of 0.129%, and went beyond the center line, and (c) left the scene of the accident without any rescue or report, the Plaintiff got injured passengers of the damaged motor vehicle due to the shock of the part of the driver’s seat of the damaged motor vehicle that was majun in the opposite lane, resulting in the injury of light fluor, etc. requiring approximately four weeks of treatment; and (d) released the damaged motor vehicle from the accident site without any rescue or report.

B. Since then, the plaintiff was arrested by the police and moved to the new North police box for the measurement of drinking, and the blood alcohol concentration level of 0.129% was 0.129% in the measurement of drinking.

C. The Plaintiff was issued a summary order (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 20093) stating that he/she is punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000 due to the fact that he/she was driven while under the influence of alcohol and that he/she was negligent in driving beyond the central line while under the influence of alcohol, and that he/she was punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,00,000 due to negligence in the course of duty who was driven beyond the central line while under the influence of alcohol. The above order

On February 5, 2014, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff, thereby cancelling the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license (C) on February 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on May 27, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 10 evidence, Eul 1 to 14 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On December 7, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she attended a meeting at the recommendation of the dong residents on December 19, 2013, thereby drinking alcohol.

The plaintiff did not feel a fry for each other, and the plaintiff also sought an agent to leave the church.