1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 8, 2015, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at KRW 0.069% on blood alcohol level on March 22:40, 2015, was imposed 125 points after the head of the police station as the Seoul Provincial Police Agency (hereinafter “Defendant Commissioner of the National Police Agency”) affiliated with the Seoul Provincial Police Agency for the head of the police station on April 25, 2015, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff, while driving a franchise-low private taxi on the front road of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the high-speed park from the high-speed distance flood protection area; (b) did not discover any other vehicle that was parked on the front bank in the same direction; and (c) caused the accident that caused damage to the vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”); and (d) the Plaintiff was imposed 125 points after the driver of the police station as the Seoul Provincial Police Agency (hereinafter “Defendant Commissioner of the National Police Agency”).

B. As to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2015, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total cumulative score for one year exceeds 125 points per year, which is the criteria for revoking the driver’s license; (b) Article 93(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 13458, Aug. 11, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 29, Jun. 30, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) (hereinafter referred to as “attached

1. The Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked on June 4, 2015 according to item (c) (i) of general standards.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant revocation disposition”). C.

The defendant Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City revoked the driver's license of the plaintiff on September 1, 2015, and Article 85 (1) 37 of the Passenger Transport Service Act and Article 43 (1) [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to the plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s private taxi transportation business license was revoked pursuant to item (a)(35) of individual standards.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition for revocation of individual taxi license,” and the disposition for revocation of driver’s license of this case (hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”). (The grounds for recognition”) is without dispute, and the number A Nos. 1 and 2 is each number.