1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant conducted the second test of qualifying examination for licensed administrative agents, which was entrusted by the Minister of Security and Public Administration pursuant to Article 8(1) and (3) of the former Administrative Justice Act (amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter “former Administrative Justice”) on October 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant test”).

The method of the examination of this case is composed of 4 subjects of the Civil Code, the theory of administrative procedure, the theory of office management, and the practical law of administrative affairs (one hundred points each), and four questions per subject shall be drawn up.

The criteria for passing the examination of this case are "a person whose score of each subject is not less than 40 points, and whose average score of all subjects is not less than 60 points," and where the number of successful examinees is less than 330 persons (287 general administrative officers, foreign language translation administrative officers, and three technical administrative officers: 40 persons) who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects within the scope of the minimum number of successful examinees, successful examinees shall be additionally determined in the order of higher average points for all subjects from among those who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects, and where the number of successful examinees exceeds the minimum number of successful

Among the examinations of this case, the following problems of practical law subjects are as follows.

(E) On January 1, 200, A was driving under the blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% which constitutes the grounds for revocation of driver's license and was discovered to B by police officers.

B requested administrative disposition of revocation of driver's license to the commissioner of the district police agency who is the holder of driver's license cancellation.

On the other hand, A was classified as a person subject to the suspension of driver's license by computer input error of a policeman who works together with B, and the chief of the competent police station issued a disposition of suspension of driver's license on July 20, 2014, and A returned a driver's license.

On August 27, 2014, the commissioner of the competent district police agency requested B to cancel A's driver's license.

A seeks the revocation of a driver's license.