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 July 8, 2014, at around 23:28, the Plaintiff driven a B-hurged vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.270%, and on August 5, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large, class 1 ordinary, and class 2 motor vehicles) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on August 5, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on October 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is illegal since the plaintiff's substitute driving engineer's failure to register an apartment vehicle after arrival at the apartment site at his/her place of residence and driving it for about about 250 meters in the vicinity of the convenience store for parking. It is necessary to obtain a driver's license as a heavy equipment driving company. It is difficult to obtain a driver's license as a kind of driver's license which is irrelevant to the above A half-way driver's license, and it is a non-accident driver's experience for about 7 years. Thus, the disposition of this case is against the law because the disadvantage of the plaintiff is remarkably larger than the public interest to be achieved by the disposition of this case.

B. (1) Where one person holds more than one driver's license and the grounds for revoking the driver's license are common to several driver's licenses, the person may fully revoke the driver's license that allows the driver to drive the vehicle on the basis of the vehicle driven at the time of the violation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12452, Mar. 11, 2005). According to Article 80(2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53 and attached Table 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, “passenger car” includes one of the vehicles that can be driven with a first-class large driver’s license. Thus, the instant vehicle for which the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol can be driven with a first-class large driver’s license, and there is no illegality in the Defendant’s revocation of the said driver’s license.