1. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant’s revocation of the driver’s license for the Plaintiff on the second-class small driver’s license for the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 23, 2014, at around 22:10, the Plaintiff, while driving a D-car on the front of the Danel located in Yongcheon-si B (hereinafter “instant car”), was controlled, and the alcohol measurement was conducted at around 22:38 on the same day, resulting in a blood alcohol concentration of 0.122%.

B. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1, Class 1, and Class 2) was revoked as of December 6, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act according to the result of the said alcohol alcohol measurement.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) illegality of revocation of a Class 2 driver’s license cannot be driven with a Class 2 driver’s license, and its revocation is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion related to the increase of the blood alcohol content is unlawful. 2) On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff 22:10 on the same day and 22:38 on the same day after he was involved in an accident while driving a alcohol at around 22:122% on the same day. As long as the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content was measured at around 68 minutes after the time of alcohol measurement from the final point of time of alcohol, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving exceeds 0.1%, which is the criteria for revocation of driver’s license.

3) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff abused discretionary power is currently supporting the family by driving a sprink at the construction site, and the revocation of a driver’s license is no longer possible to engage in the occupation, making it very difficult for the Plaintiff’s livelihood difficult, and faithfully serving in the ordinary social welfare facilities, etc., the instant disposition was erroneous in the Plaintiff’s excessive suspicion and abuse of discretionary power. (B) The first argument of the Plaintiff is a number of persons who determined on the first argument.