1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, from September 26, 2015 to November 4, 2015, was subject to a disposition of suspending his/her driver’s license for 40 days due to the unpaid penalty. On October 19, 2015, the period of the suspension was October 10:35, the Plaintiff driven a B-type car on the road front of the Young Docscopium located in the Sinsan-si additional Docop, Yangsan-si.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of December 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving during the suspension period of the driver’s license.

On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the driver’s license is essential in order for the Plaintiff to engage in his/her occupation, and the Plaintiff’s wife was inevitably driving a motor vehicle in an oriental medicine bank due to the inconvenience of body, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it exceeded and abused discretion.

B. Considering that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had an inevitable circumstance during the suspension period of driver's license, and that the Plaintiff had the history of violating several traffic regulations even before the instant case, the public interest intended to achieve the instant disposition is greater than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would incur, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as an abuse of discretionary power, and the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

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