1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s Class I and Class II ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) as of June 1, 2016, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on April 27, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a bomb car on the Seocho-gu Seoul Southern IC road located in the Southern circulation of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while under the influence of alcohol content of 00:03:0 on April 19, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Eul 4 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was an acting engineer after completing a drinking conference for the promotion of the workplace's ships, but he was found to have been under the control of driving without waiting for more than one hour. The plaintiff was found to have been driving for about 20 years after obtaining the driver's license. The plaintiff was a simple drinking driver who has not caused traffic accidents, the driver's license is absolutely absolutely necessary for the business trip and driving, and the mother and the wife must support the business trip and driving. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is in violation of law by abusing the scope of discretionary authority because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.