1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary and Class II ordinary driver’s license (D) as of July 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Defendant was a third driver of the vehicle in the state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.07% in front of the Orcheon-gu, Macheon-gu, Busan with C in the state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.58%” against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Eul evidence 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the revocation of a driver’s license pursuant to the proviso of Article 93(1) and subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act belongs to an act of binding discretion, and thus, an administrative agency’s revocation of a driver’s license without considering the grounds for mitigation is a deviation and abuse

The plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration of the past drinking power is minor and the distance of movement is short, and in particular, it has been 12 years prior to the university student or graduate student.

The plaintiff was subject to recommendation from the company due to the instant disposition, and the unemployment benefits have been terminated at present.

When the disposition of this case becomes final and conclusive, it is difficult for the plaintiff to continue to lead to the business as the plaintiff is disqualified for acquiring driver's license for two years.

Although there are grounds for mitigation to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not consider this, and thus, the instant disposition was in violation of law that deviates from and abused discretion.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the plaintiff's 0.051% alcohol concentration on October 7, 2002 and the plaintiff's 0.059% alcohol concentration on December 15, 2003 respectively. The disposition of this case against the plaintiff who conducted the third drunk driving pursuant to the proviso of Article 93 (1) and subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act constitutes a binding act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that it is a discretionary act is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.