1. On January 28, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of the driver’s license for the Plaintiff on January 28, 2015 is a Class II driver’s license.

1. On January 28, 2015, the Defendant revoked the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license [one-class driver’s license for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was revoked as of January 25, 2015, on the ground that “The Plaintiff was under the influence of 0.065% alcohol, and was under the influence of 0.051% blood alcohol content on April 28, 2008, and was under the influence of 0.051% alcohol content on two occasions. However, on January 11, 2015, the Defendant was under the influence of 0.062% blood alcohol content on three occasions, while under the influence of 0.062% alcohol content on two occasions.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, and 5 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the police officer informed the Plaintiff that the blood alcohol concentration level through the respiratory measurement at the time of the crackdown on drunk driving constitutes “100 days of suspension of driver’s license”, the Defendant’s revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of the power of drinking driving twice is unlawful in violation of the principle of trust. 2) The Defendant revoked the entirety of the instant four-class driver’s license held by the Plaintiff. As long as the Plaintiff driven a vehicle at the time of the instant drunk driving, the revocation of the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. The plaintiff is in charge of the investigation and development of groundwater in the Korea Rural Community Corporation at present, and it is necessary to drive in order to conduct on-site work. When the driver's license is revoked, it is very difficult for his family's livelihood and basic living support. The plaintiff took a full rest after drinking alcohol at the night immediately before the enforcement of the instant case, and was driving on the following day. The plaintiff was under the influence of drinking alcohol due to the lack of breath, and was under the influence of drinking.