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 January 31, 2015, around 18:35, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a brea II cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.088% in the vicinity of the Southern-si, Namyang-si; (b) caused a traffic accident while driving the brea II cargo level of 0.08%.

B. On February 16, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, and class 2 motor vehicles) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had injured people by causing a traffic accident while driving a drinking motor vehicle as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On March 24, 2015, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1, 6 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is unlawful to revoke all licenses for Class I ordinary, Class II ordinary, and Class II motor vehicles owned by the Plaintiff, which are discovered while driving the Poter II motor vehicles.

(2) Except for the instant case, considering the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff is operating an exemplary vehicle without an accident and a violation of laws and regulations; (b) the agreement procedures are underway against the victim; (c) the driving of a drinking alcohol is in contravention of the depth; (d) the Plaintiff is engaged in alcoholic beverage delivery business as the most supporting wife and two children; (b) the driver’s license is essential; (c) the revocation of the driver’s license is a threat to the livelihood of the family members supported by the Plaintiff by leaving the workplace; (d) the revocation of the driver’s license would threaten the livelihood of the said family members; (e) the physical disability is the 6th degree; (e) the circumstances leading to the drunk driving; and (e) the reasons for mitigation under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic

B. (1) As to the assertion on the scope of revocation.