1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne;

1. Details of disposition;

A. At around 01:30 on March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff holding a license for Class 1 and Class 1 driver’s license for special vehicles: (a) but under the influence of alcohol at 0.163%, the Plaintiff transleted the car to B at the intersection of the luminous IC at the luminous-Eup in front of a luminous-type restaurant located in the luminous-Eup at the luminous-si.

B. On April 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class I and Class I special vehicle driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on May 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 13 evidence, Eul's 9 evidence, Eul's 11, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Twitler may drive a motor vehicle with the Class I driver’s license owned by the Plaintiff, but the Class I driver’s license for large vehicles is not relevant to each other, and thus, even if the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, it is illegal as an unfair decision-making part of the instant disposition that the Plaintiff revoked the Class I driver’s license for large motor vehicles. 2) The Plaintiff must support a mother who is under the influence of his/her own disease and cardio-cerebrovas disease, without a driver’s license, is likely to cause enormous inconvenience to his/her livelihood without a driver’s license. In full view of the fact that he/she is under the influence of alcohol treatment, the instant disposition was abused by discretion.

B. Determination 1) Not only is a person who has obtained a multiple types of driver's license, but also revocation or suspension of the license.