1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. On November 7, 2014, the key issue of the instant case, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a DNA EXE car while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.110% at the entrance of Busan Shipping Daegu C on October 16, 2014.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The key issue of the instant case is whether there was an error of law that deviates from or abused the discretion of the instant disposition.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance at the court of first instance: ① the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content is 0.110% and clearly exceeds 0.1% corresponding to the individual criteria for revocation of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act; ② the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.079% on January 31, 2004, and was subject to the disposition of suspension of driver’s license again, even if the Plaintiff was under the influence of under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.079%, and ③ there were inevitable circumstances under which the Plaintiff was bound to drive under the influence of alcohol;

In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no circumstance to consider the circumstances leading up to drinking; (b) the administrative agency’s disposition cannot be deemed to have to be mitigated as it is necessary to maintain an occupation or maintain a livelihood of his family members; and (c) the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain a driver’s license again after the lapse of the disqualified period under Article 82(2) of the Road Traffic Act even if the instant disposition is revoked, the Plaintiff determined that the instant disposition was a legitimate disposition taken within the scope of discretionary authority on the ground that the public interest need to achieve the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be less than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would incur, even if considering all the allegations presented by the Plaintiff.

2. The judgment of the court of this case and the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are hard to maintain the livelihood of the plaintiff and his family when the driver's license is revoked by the disposition of this case.