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 December 29, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired each of the Class 2 ordinary vehicles and Class 1 ordinary vehicles on April 17, 1998.

On October 4, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to revoke the driver’s license by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.336% on October 4, 2008, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.082% on December 26, 2015.

B. On August 21, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired Class I driver’s licenses respectively, Class II small-sized businesses on February 6, 2014, and Class I large-scale drivers’ licenses on March 19, 2018.

C. On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff is driving Jeju Oral Ba (189C) while under the influence of alcohol at around 0.075% of blood alcohol level on July 9, 2018.

(d) was discovered.

On August 21, 2018, pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class I large, Class I ordinary, and Class II small driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of August 28, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on September 10, 2018, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 17, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1-22 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion was found to have been driven only with the second-class ordinary driver's license, and the defendant should only revoke the second-class ordinary driver's license.

However, since the defendant revoked all Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary drivers who do not have any relationship with the above Class 2 ordinary drivers' licenses, the disposition of this case is unlawful in violation of the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making.

Furthermore, the plaintiff needs a driver's license to maintain his livelihood, so the disposition of this case must be revoked unfairly.

(b)be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.