1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff driven a B rocketing car, one owned by himself, as the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.126% of alcohol content around 17:35 on May 26, 2016, at a short distance from the Yangsan-ro 89 on the street of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On June 3, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the driver’s license (Class II common) based on Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff.

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Sep. 30, 2016).

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following: (i) the Plaintiff’s disposition is lawful; (ii) the Plaintiff has no record of driving alcohol; (iii) the Plaintiff only driven approximately 3-4 meters in order to move a parking location of a vehicle parked at the request of another person; and (iv) the difficult home-type system, etc., the instant disposition should be revoked as it deviates from and abused discretion.

According to Article 93(1)1 of the Luxembourg Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1)28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the time when a person drives a vehicle in a drunken state (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration) shall be determined based on the revocation of the license, and the disposition penalty points may be mitigated to 110 points for “a person who is an important means to maintain his family’s livelihood or is engaged in transport service activities for not less than three years at the time of the disposition as an exemplary driver, or who has received an official commendation from the chief of a police station or higher by arresting the escape driver and does not meet the requirements for exclusion.” One of the requirements for exclusion from the mitigation is “a person whose blood alcohol concentration exceeds 0.12%.”

The above criteria for revocation of license do not seem to be reasonable and reasonable.