1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 27, 200, the Plaintiff obtained a Class I ordinary driver’s license (B) from the Commissioner of the Seoul Local Police Agency on July 27, 2000, and around May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.138% at the street, before the entrance of the Seoul Hanam-si, Gyeonggi-do, on the day of driving the DMobban vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.138%.

B. On June 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license with respect to driving under influence as stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter the instant disposition).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 7, 2016, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 16, 2016.

On November 15, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the suspension of the sentence of a fine of KRW 3 million for the violation of the Road Traffic Act by Sungwon District Court Branch 2016DaMa1084 on November 15, 2016, but the prosecutor appealed and continues to appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, on the day of the instant case, the Plaintiff returned home with his employees and meals to the Hanam-si of Gyeonggi-do, and was in office as an acting driver. However, the Plaintiff became an acting driver and a trial driver due to charges for no time, and a large truck was demanded to move the vehicle in the situation where a acting driver was left on the road by setting up the vehicle on the road and leaving the match.

Therefore, the plaintiff has been engaged in drunk driving in the course of inevitably moving about about 10 meters to the roadside. Thus, it does not constitute a drunk driving, as it does not violate the emergency evacuation or social rules as stipulated in Articles 20 through 22 of the Criminal Act, and even if it constitutes a drunk driving, it does not constitute a drunk driving. The plaintiff's business is operated by the company.