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 May 28, 2014, the key issue of the instant case, the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.07% on the ground that he/she was under the influence of alcohol, was given a point of 100 points. On the other hand, on June 15, 2014, the Plaintiff left a container of an amount equivalent to KRW 2 million at the market price used as a parking lot office in Busan Seo-gu, while driving a Karen car on the front of the D parking lot in Busan on June 15, 2014.

Accordingly, by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license [one-class large, one-class ordinary, one-class special, and one-class special (one-class special)] as of July 25, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s accumulated score for one year falls under the Plaintiff’s 125 point of duty of safe driving 100 points (15 points of non-measures after the violation of duty of safe driving 100 points after traffic accidents) and falls under the Plaintiff’s 121 point of license revocation.

The key issue of the instant case is ① whether the Defendant’s imposition of penalty points 15 on the ground of the instant traffic accident is justifiable, ② whether the revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of excess of penalty points is an error of deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

B. In relation to the issue ①, the court of first instance held that the traffic accident in the instant case involving the parts outside of the container and the goods in the container were scattered far away from the front line, and the said vehicle was damaged to a considerable extent. The vehicle was obstructed by having a container, and the passage part of the passage part of the vehicle was obstructed by the passage part of the pedestrian and the vehicle, and the vehicle was stopped. After the traffic accident in the instant case, the passenger E expressed that he would be able to leave the vehicle to F who is the above parking lot operator, and the Plaintiff is a meal in the nearby restaurant along with E.