1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

① On August 14, 1978, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary vehicle driving license, ② a Class 1 ordinary vehicle driving license on December 20, 1979, ③ a Class 1 ordinary vehicle driving license on August 22, 1994, ④ a Class 1 large vehicle driving license on May 20, 196.

The plaintiff's above driver's licenses ①, ② the license was revoked on March 9, 1993 on the ground of the traffic accident caused by drinking driving personnel on March 6, 1993, and the license at issue in this case is the above ③ and ④ license.

The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol on January 5, 2019, was found to police officers while driving a private taxi owned by him/her while he/she was under the influence of alcohol on the new wall, and was found to have taken a drinking test, and accordingly, the blood alcohol concentration was measured to 0.07%. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of driver’s license suspension for 50 days from February 19, 2019 to April 9, 2019.

On April 19, 2019, the Plaintiff was given 30 points to the Plaintiff as a violation of the traffic classification (median line) in front of the Southern-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, where he was driving a private taxi on April 13:33, 201, and became 130 points to the aggregate acid points for one year.

(hereinafter “instant violation”). On May 31, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I driver’s license, Class I driver’s license, Class I driver’s license) on the ground that the Plaintiff exceeded 121 points, which is the base point for revocation of the driver’s license for one year.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On June 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 26, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 11, and the purport of the entire argument of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff's assertion is currently engaging in the taxi driver's business for 25 years as a private taxi driver, and it is difficult to find another job in the event the driver's license is revoked due to the age of 63 years, and the plaintiff's wife is being treated as a boom.