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

A. At around 02:40 on May 4, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a b motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.191%; (b) obstructed delivery while passing through the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; and (c) informed the location of the general welfare center for persons with severe disabilities of the said location, the Plaintiff left the bar sign pole to the front part of his/her motor vehicle, which was installed at the relevant location, for repair expenses of KRW 1,622,30,00 for repair and damage the said steel sign, etc. to the front part of his/her motor vehicle and left the accident site without taking necessary measures.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff was arrested by the police and measured alcohol in front of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu D, and the blood alcohol concentration was 0.181% (0.191% when the Medmark formula is applied) in the measurement of alcohol.

C. The Plaintiff was issued a summary order with the purport that he/she is punished by a fine of KRW 4,00,000 (Seoul District Court Decision 201Da12384) due to the fact that he/she drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a 0.191% alcohol and the fact that he/she has driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol while under the influence of alcohol and damages iron repair plate, etc. due to negligence in the course of performing duties and leaving the site without taking any measures. The above order became final and conclusive around that time.

On June 3, 2014, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff for the foregoing reasons, and issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license (E) as of July 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on August 19, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 9 evidence, Eul 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she worked on May 3, 2014, and came to work in Incheon to become a arbitr or house in order to raise the problem of the mother who had been performed with the captain cancer surgery after completing his/her work on May 3, 2014.

In the process of carrying out a fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor

To put the house in Seoul.