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 January 7, 2016, at around 06:40, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.084%, and was found to have driven a motor vehicle owned by itself (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) on the roads front of the Driju station located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, by driving a motor vehicle in front of the Driju station (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”), on the south of Hongcheon-gun, and was involved in an accident and was found to have

B. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke all of the Plaintiff’s special licenses of Class I (Baer), Class I large licenses of Class I and Class II ordinary licenses (E) as of February 21, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff had a drinking record of driving under the preceding paragraph two or more times (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on May 10, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-4, 2 (including provisional number), and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On October 27, 2009, the Plaintiff’s assertion obtained a Class I driver’s license for special vehicles (rashers) on October 27, 2009, and acquired Class I driver’s license for Class I driver’s license on February 17, 2010, with the knowledge that the first driver’s license is necessary, rather than a special license (rashers) in order to drive a vehicle while working as an rasher’s article, and subsequently, the Plaintiff also acquired Class I driver’s license for large vehicles, trucks, etc. on July 5, 201. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff should be deemed to drive a vehicle with Class I driver’s license for ordinary vehicles or Class I driver’s license for large vehicles, and revocation by Class I driver’s license for special vehicles (rashers) is too harsh and thus contravenes the principle of excessive prohibition.

In addition, for the maintenance of livelihood and family support, the plaintiff must work as an article of leer vehicles, and if it is impossible to work, it is likely that the decision of individual rehabilitation will not be made.