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 June 13, 2005, while the Plaintiff obtained a private taxi transport business license and operated a private taxi transport business, on December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of revocation of the license for driving a vehicle by the Commissioner of the Gyeong-nam Police Agency on February 12, 201, while driving in a state of drinking alcohol content of at least 0.1% and causing traffic accidents.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to revoke the revocation of the driver's license, but both the first instance court (the Changwon District Court Decision 201Da267, Nov. 8, 201), and the second instance [the Busan High Court Decision 2011Nu1415, and August 30, 2012] and the second instance court (the Busan High Court Decision 201Nu1415, and August 30, 201), against which the Defendant revoked the driver's license of the Plaintiff on June 8, 2012, for which the appellate court of the said administrative litigation was pending, issued the “instant disposition” to revoke the Plaintiff's driver's license of the taxi transport business pursuant to Article 85(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act and Article 43(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute or no clear dispute, Gap 2, 3 (including paper numbers), Eul 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that ① the plaintiff did not reduce the conditions of mitigation under the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and ② Article 85 subparag. 37 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is the basis of the disposition, provides that the revocation of a driver’s license, other than passenger transport service licenses, shall be the grounds for revocation of passenger transport service licenses, and the revocation of a driver’s license, even though the form of violation, which is the grounds for revocation of the driver’s license, is diverse. This case’s drinking driving of this case, which is the fact that the plaintiff was driving by a sudden drinking for parking after the passage of the year with the driver, continued to drive a private taxi for his family’s livelihood, including the mother, even though he was suffering from disease,