1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The defendant is driving a B-car on October 27, 2018 (hereinafter in this case referred to as “b-car”) under the condition that the plaintiff was given a mark of 100 points as a drunk driving around 00:01 on November 18, 2017, while the plaintiff was given a mark of 100 points.

On November 27, 2018, by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act on November 27, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the 15th anniversary of the accident site (10 points of the violation of the duty of safety management and the 15th point of the non-measures after traffic accidents) was 125 points of the total sum of points of the D car parked in front of the Busan Fri-gu Road (hereinafter referred to as “victim”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s non-existence of the grounds for disposition 1) driving the instant sea-shielded vehicle, and the side part of the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle was lightly contacted, and the Plaintiff was unable to keep personal information because it was not aware of the fact of contact due to the Plaintiff’s driving while listening to the sound device at the time. Therefore, the 15 points of the penalty points for the Plaintiff’s failure to keep personal information after a traffic accident should not be imposed. As such, the 110 points of the penalty points for the Plaintiff’s 1-year short-term calculation points should not be imposed. Thus, the attached Table 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which is not applicable to the grounds for mitigation, is the most important means to maintain the livelihood of his family in the event the driver’s license is revoked due to excess of the penalty points, and if there is no reason to exclude the reduction of the driver’s license within the past five

The plaintiff is the most liable for the livelihood of the spouse and the children of six years of age, and is the head of the sales division in the company that sells insurance products.