1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 11, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (C) as of October 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “Around 16:30 on August 31, 2014, the Defendant was driving a vehicle with B, which is 0.142% of the blood alcohol content, in front of the Taean-gun-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun-gun, Seoul-gun, on the street, on the ground that “Around 16:30 on August 31, 2014, the Defendant was driving a third-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 1 and 10 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. It is unreasonable to create a sense of fear by the following methods: (a) the control of a vessel immediately before the Plaintiff’s assertion is made; and (b) the operation of a vessel is not hindered due to a small amount of drinking alcohol; and (c) the development of a sense of fear by

The plaintiff was able to drive under normal conditions, and the recovery remains late due to the lack of health conditions between them, and there is a circumstance in which the construction site and class 4 disabled old-age is gathered as well as the field of the farming, and the hospital should be taken every day.

The Plaintiff’s deep reflective nature, family environment, and rural life should be considered. The instant disposition is an illegal disposition that did not consider the Plaintiff’s circumstances compared to the purpose of drinking regulation.

B. According to the evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's 0.062% of the blood alcohol concentration on July 17, 2003 and the blood alcohol concentration on August 2, 2007, respectively, can be acknowledged as the fact that the plaintiff conducted the second drunk driving pursuant to the proviso of Article 93 (1) and subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act. The disposition of this case against the plaintiff who conducted the third drunk driving pursuant to the proviso of Article 93 (2) and subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act constitutes the binding act.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be a ground for illegality of the instant disposition.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.