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 June 1, 1990, the Plaintiff obtained a Class II driver’s license (B), Class I driver’s license for large vehicles on May 10, 1994, Class I driver’s license for special large vehicles on May 30, 1994, Class I driver’s license for rescue and salvage vehicles on May 30, 1994, and Class I driver’s license for a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.07% on November 5, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of 50 days of driver’s license for a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.07% (50 days from December 17, 2017 to February 4, 2018).

B. On January 31, 2018, at around 13:15, the period during which the suspension of driver’s license was suspended, the Plaintiff controlled Cbe-cr cruise-type car driving approximately 10km (hereinafter “instant driving”). From the 365 Braziln apartment complex to the front parking lot located in the Si/Gupo-Eup located in the same city, the Plaintiff controlled Cbe-type cruise-type car driving at approximately 10km (hereinafter “instant driving”).

C. On February 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license by applying Article 93(1)19 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of driving during the suspension period of driver’s license as stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 5, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the driving of this case. The plaintiff is entrusted with the repair of the motor vehicle. There are extenuating circumstances to consider the situation of the driving because the plaintiff's spouse was unable to drive the motor vehicle due to the plaintiff's spouse's failure to drive the motor vehicle. The plaintiff is engaged in the Pyeongtaek-do export-import container transport business, and the driving of the motor vehicle is essential to maintain his/her livelihood, and the plaintiff cannot obtain a cargo transport certificate for the next five years due to the disposition of this case.