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 September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was driving in the state of blood alcohol content of 0.07%, and was given penalty points of 100 points.

B. On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received 30 points from the median line as a median line while driving. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license (B) as of June 7, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 2 and 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was not aware of the topographical and signal system, thereby making an internship by trusting that he/she was not aware of the geographical and signal system, and there was no intention to commit the central crime.

On January 2014, the Plaintiff received a notice of imposition of penalty points and paid an administrative fine in all, on the ground that the police officer in charge of crackdown was aware that the driver's license is not revoked because he/she was subject to all penalty points by the early police officer.

The Plaintiff needs to obtain a driver’s license for the duties of the Plaintiff to visit and examine the Tongwon of the mother-child who is a soldier and the construction site across the country. As such, the instant disposition is a disposition that lacks reasonableness in light of the principle of proportionality.

The instant disposition is unlawful by deviating from discretion.

B. The sanctions against violation of the administrative laws and regulations can be imposed even if the violator did not have intention or negligence, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24371, Jun. 28, 2012). Thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful even if the Plaintiff did not have intention to commit a crime with the central line.

In addition, even if the control police officer said that the existing penalty points were dismissed during the control process, the instant disposition is not unlawful.

Finally, according to Eul evidence 6, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration of 0.086% on June 23, 2001 and 0.071% on March 30, 2008.