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 November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license from the Defendant on February 23, 2016 on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.104%, but was subject to the disposition of revocation of the driver’s license from the Defendant on February 23, 2016. However, as a result of an administrative appeal filed with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, the Plaintiff was subject to the reduction of the driver’s license of March 23, 2016

B. On September 3, 2016, at around 07:56, the Plaintiff was given 15 points of penalty points due to a violation of signal while driving a motor vehicle of soflured from the B at the vicinity of the East Asian University.

C. Accordingly, on October 11, 2016, by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first and second class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) as of November 13, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total sum of 125 points (i.e., 110 +15 points) per year reaches a total of 125 points (i.e., 110 points).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no traffic accident for 27 years since the acquisition of the driver’s license around 1989, and the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of carrying automobile parts and subsidiary materials and supplying them to the customers scattered in the area and thus the driver’s license is essential. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff must support the mother and wife, high school students, and two children in preparation for employment, and that the cancellation of the driver’s license is difficult to maintain their livelihood when the driver’s license is revoked, the instant disposition of this case abused the Plaintiff’s discretion because it is too harsh.

B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the degree of infringement of public interest by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all relevant circumstances.