1. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of the driver’s license for the Plaintiff on April 16, 2015 is a Class II driver’s license.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 28, 2015, at around 03:54, the Plaintiff driven a BM5 car (hereinafter “instant car”) on the front side of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seocho-gu SM5 car (hereinafter “instant car”) while under the influence of alcohol by 0.092% of alcohol level.

B. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 1, class 2, and class 2) as of May 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had already been driving on May 30, 200 and April 30, 2005 on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been subject to the disposition of suspension of license.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the said appeal on June 16, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the Plaintiff’s wrongful drunk driving of the revocation of a Class 2 license, the Defendant revoked a Class 2 small-sized license without any relevance, even though the Plaintiff was driving with a Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary license. As such, the part of the instant disposition of this case’s small-sized license is unlawful. 2) In order to maintain the Plaintiff’s and his family’s livelihood, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving license is essential

In addition, the National Police Agency revoked the suspension and revocation of a driver's license for a person subject to an administrative disposition in violation of the Road Traffic Act before December 22, 2013, since 70 weeks of luminous 70 weeks around August 14, 2015. Although the plaintiff was excluded from the above reduction and exemption in violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice, it is reasonable to take a disposition excluding once out of the Plaintiff's two-time driving experience in consideration of the principle of equity.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case without considering these circumstances is discretionary.