1. On December 10, 2014, the Defendant’s revocation disposition on the revocation of the license (Class 2 common) that the Plaintiff driving.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 8, 2014, the Plaintiff made drinking by no later than 22:20, the Plaintiff operated B automobiles at the front of 80 Dok-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, 22:25 on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

The plaintiff was found to be a drunk driving in this case, and the blood alcohol concentration was measured with the respiratory measuring instrument around 23:02 on the same day, and the numerical value was 0.10%.

C. Accordingly, on December 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 2 ordinary license (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 13, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 6, 17, Eul No. 1, 5, 6, 7, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) was true that the place where the plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time does not fall under the roads stipulated in the Road Traffic Act as a parking lot in apartment complex. Thus, even if the plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol, it does not constitute a ground for revocation of driver's license. 2) Since the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol at the time when the plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol at around 22:20, when the plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of raising the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking.

3) Furthermore, considering the various circumstances, including the fact that the driver’s license is essential to carry out business such as delivery of customers to the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s income alone must support seven large-scale families, the instant disposition by the Defendant constitutes a violation of the discretionary authority. (b) Whether the instant disposition is a drunk driving on the “road” as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act.