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 April 26, 2015, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.106% alcohol concentration, around 23:15.

B. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for driving Class 1 large, Class 1 ordinary, and Class 1 special (bitr) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 12, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Defendant was driving a passenger car at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol, it is sufficient for the Defendant to revoke only the first-class ordinary driver’s license, and the first-class ordinary driver’s license cannot be revoked. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s revocation of all driving licenses is unlawful. The Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant disposition is deemed to have served as bitr and proxy driver’s license in order to maintain his/her family’s livelihood, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the sake of maintaining his/her family’s livelihood. The instant disposition by the Defendant constitutes a case where he/she deviatess from and abused discretionary authority.

B. 1) In principle, not only the case where a person who has obtained multiple kinds of driver's licenses, but also the case where the revocation or suspension thereof is different from each other. However, where the grounds for revocation or suspension are common to other licenses or are related to a person who has obtained a driver's license, the entire driver's license may be revoked or suspended.

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu492 delivered on June 28, 1996