1. On August 3, 2016, the revocation of the Defendant’s revocation of the license for Class 1 ordinary class 2 ordinary driving, which the Plaintiff rendered.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired the Class 2 ordinary driving license on January 15, 1997 and the Class 1 ordinary driving license on March 5, 2007, respectively.

B. On August 3, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary and Class 2 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at least 0.1% of alcohol level.”

On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but received a dismissal ruling on September 20, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no ground for disposition, along with the same rent, went to the vicinity of his house, and went to the front of his house, and did not drive a motor vehicle by driving a motor vehicle on the light instead of the motor vehicle with a driver’s seat. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful in the absence of a ground for disposition. 2) The Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff’s representative engineer claiming abuse of discretionary power, without any history of violating traffic regulations, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is essential to be an insurance solicitor. In light of all circumstances, the instant disposition was deemed to be an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. On June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s substitute driver operating the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant case was driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle on behalf of the Plaintiff and parked on the front seat of the Plaintiff’s home, which does not interfere with the passage of other vehicles, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 4, No. 4, and Nos. 3 and 5.