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 3, 2014, the Plaintiff, while driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.060%, was under the influence of alcohol and was given 100 points with penalty points given by the Defendant.

B. After that, on December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident that causes personal injury to one of the persons on duty of safe driving (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) by violating the duty of safe driving (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), which was given a given point of 25 points (one point of ten points among the duty of safe driving).

C. Accordingly, on February 10, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of March 8, 2015 pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s accumulated total of 125 points (class 25 points) per year constituted the Plaintiff’s accumulated total of 125 points (class 100 points).

On March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said request on April 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant traffic accident occurred when the driver of Oral Ba was negligent in performing his duty of front-time navigation, and the Plaintiff was forced to overtake the vehicle at a rapid speed of the vehicle, and the instant traffic accident occurred in the instant case, the Plaintiff is currently a delivery engineer and thus there is little negligence on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is currently a delivery engineer, and thus the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license, and the Plaintiff’s life is extremely difficult to engage in his occupation, the Plaintiff is very difficult to engage in his occupation, and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the driver’s license did not cause a traffic accident for 30 years after the Plaintiff acquired the driver’s license, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing its discretionary power.