1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On February 1, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired Class II ordinary driver’s license (license number: B).

B. On May 29, 2014, at around 23:54, the Plaintiff driven a NAS car on the front side of the D Pharmacy located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.145%.

C. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the above drunk driving.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around 23:54 on May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff left the Plaintiff’s business of driving the NAS car parked in a slope; (b) although E was walking at the Dong, E was unable to remove the motive for parking.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff released the parking engine by means of moving the speed changeer located at the parking (P) group to a part other than the parking (P), after taking the motor vehicle driving seat to the right edge from the driver's seat.

However, in order for the Plaintiff to turn off the driver's seat to E, he/she was detached from the motor walk walk in the motor walk. At this time, the said car was moved to the direction of about 10 cm, and the lower part of F walked from the right side of the said car was shocked.

As above, the Plaintiff operated a removal operation of a parking motor for another person's driving without his/her own intention, and the said vehicle was parked in a slope, and the said vehicle was only driven in the direction of about 10cm prior to the driving of the vehicle, depending on the fact that the said vehicle was in a structure that makes it possible to drive the vehicle in the case of the removal of a parking motor on a slope.

Therefore, the plaintiff's act of removing parking motor is not an act of driving a motor vehicle.