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 October 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of November 14, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven C vehicle under the influence of alcohol at an underground parking lot of 0.125% in blood alcohol level at around 01:02 on October 2, 2018 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On October 24, 2018, the Plaintiff was sentenced to summary order of KRW 4 million at the Daegu District Court on November 6, 2018 (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”) and on November 28, 2018, the said summary order became final and conclusive on the 28th of the same month.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 21, 2018.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The place where the Plaintiff driven at the time is an apartment building connected to the instant apartment parking lot and underground parking lot, which is a place that is not open to the public only for special purposes, such as a vehicle of apartment residents or a vehicle visiting the residents. It cannot be called a road because it is not a place open to the public for many unspecified persons or vehicles and horses. 2) The Plaintiff arrived at the apartment building by proxy, but the parking space was set up at the entrance of the apartment, a substitute driving technician without parking space was set up in the underground parking lot above the entrance of the apartment. The Plaintiff was inevitable to drive the vehicle in order not to obstruct the passage of other vehicles. The distance was about 10 meters, a substitute driving engineer reported the Plaintiff at the time of bad appraisal, and the accident occurred due to the driving of the instant drinking.