1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On May 4, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on June 8, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.131% at the front of C located in Seocho-gu, Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) on the grounds that the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.1%.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. On the grounds that the Plaintiff’s defense prior to the merits was unlawful since the crackdown on driving under the influence of alcohol was caused by naval investigation, the Defendant asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked. On the third date for pleading, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful since the Plaintiff newly acquired a Class I ordinary driver’s license after the instant disposition was made on the third date for pleading.

B. On July 9, 2018, which was the date the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, the fact that the first class ordinary driving license was newly acquired on July 9, 2018, may be recognized by either dispute between the parties, or by the purport of the evidence Nos. 1-2 and the entire pleadings. There is no counter-proof.

According to the above facts, the infringement of legal interest suffered by the plaintiff due to the cancellation of the plaintiff's previous Class 1 ordinary vehicle driver's license by the disposition of this case was immediately resolved by the plaintiff's new acquisition of the Class 1 ordinary driver's license.

In addition, in light of the Road Traffic Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, where a person, such as the Plaintiff, who had the record of revocation of a driver's license, obtains again a driver's license due to the cancellation of the disqualified period, there is no evidence to deem that the previous driver's license was revoked and then disadvantageous

Where a person who has violated Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act at least twice in violation of Article 44 (1) again falls under the grounds for the suspension of driver's license in violation of Article 44 (1).