1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (C) as of November 6, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “Around August 2014, 2014, the Defendant driven B vehicles with blood alcohol content of 0.087% on the street in front of the intersection of Isan City, and carried out the third driving, including 0.096% on January 2, 2004, and 0.073% on February 13, 2005.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was under a sudden contact with his/her friendship after drinking alcohol and called a phone at many places of his/her substitute driving company, but the distribution of article requires one hour, and driving with a multi-level mind.

The plaintiff is responsible for the material management and delivery business that requires a driver's license in a vehicle parts manufacturer, supports his spouse and the second male female, whose blood alcohol content is minor by 0.084%, and is deeply contradictory.

The instant disposition is an unlawful act that deviates from or abused discretionary power.

B. According to the statement No. 14-4 and 6 of the evidence No. 14-6, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff conducted a drunk driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.096% on Jan. 2, 2004 and a blood alcohol concentration of 0.073% on Feb. 13, 2005, respectively. The disposition of this case against the plaintiff who conducted the third drunk driving pursuant to the proviso of Article 93(1) and subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act constitutes a binding act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.