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

A. On August 19, 2014, at around 02:46, the Plaintiff driven a clateral car on the roads front 115-dong Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.127%.

B. On September 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary vehicle driver’s license (license number: D) on October 1, 2014 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① the place where the Plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol is a parking lot within an apartment complex, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. ② Taking account of various circumstances, such as the fact that the car driver’s license is essential to maintain the Plaintiff’s livelihood, and that there is no driving power to be criticized for the Plaintiff, the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s excessive deviation or abuse of discretionary power, thereby falling under the Plaintiff’s disposition.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. 1) Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term “road” means all places used for roads under the Road Act, the toll roads under the Toll Road Act, and other general traffic. Here, “any place used for general traffic” refers to an open area actually used for an unspecified person or vehicle traffic, where there is a public nature of the general traffic police authority for the purpose of maintaining traffic order, and only a specific person or a person with a specific building related thereto may use it and independently manage it.