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

A. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a Fliter vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of about 5 meters from the front of the restaurant located in Macheon-si B, to the front of the Matern in D, at around August 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).” pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 2 ordinary driver’s license as of October 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's each entry, and the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle was discovered as a minor contact accident with the parked vehicle after the other guest was parked in the parking lot because he saw the vehicle parked in the same way as a cafeteria, while the other guest was cut off about 5 meters. The victim only agreed with the victim and the plaintiff should support his family while driving the vehicle as a real estate intermediary. Thus, the plaintiff's driver's license in this case is essential to the plaintiff, but the defendant's disposition of this case is deviating from or abusing discretion.

B. In the modern society where a motor vehicle becomes a public and universal means of transportation, the increase of traffic accidents and the harm and injury caused by drinking driving must be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than that of the party subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of ordinary beneficial administrative acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).