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 May 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class II ordinary driver’s license (C) as of June 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “Around March 28, 2013, the Defendant driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.104% on the street in front of the KNNNA KNNA-dong, Busan, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.104% on the street, and did not cause a traffic accident with a human fee (three persons on the street) and did not perform on-site relief measures and duty to report.”

B. After the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 10 million in the Busan District Court due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc.). This judgment became final and conclusive

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 2 and 18 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not know the fact of an accident by raising the music accounting in the vehicle, and did not focus on the victims’ damage to the extent that rescue measures should be taken.

In addition, the plaintiff was not in a state of drinking at the time of the accident after the accident.

After applying the Bamark formula without objective evidence, the disposition of this case on the ground of the body of drinking drivers is too harsh to the plaintiff who was a business member supporting the mother who has a disability, and thus, is in violation of the law of deviation and abuse of discretion.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. 1) Determination 1) Even if the facts acknowledged in the original civil or administrative litigation are not detained in a criminal trial, the facts recognized in the judgment of the relevant criminal case are the precious evidence in the civil or administrative litigation, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts against the recognition in the relevant criminal case, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu324, Sept. 13, 1983).