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

A. On October 11, 2014, the Plaintiff driven B vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.111% with a blood alcohol content around 18:30 on October 11, 2014, resulting in a traffic accident involving a serious one person and a light one person.

B. Accordingly, on November 6, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the license for Class 1 and Class 1 ordinary driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is engaged in the transportation business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is required to obtain a driver’s license, and the blood alcohol concentration is deemed to have high in personal health condition. Personal damage is minor, the victims have received medical treatment, and the victims have completed or have been endeavored to reach an agreement with the victims. The Plaintiff’s allegation that drinking water was not caused by a traffic accident, but caused an accident by neglecting the explosion in the process. The instant disposition by the Defendant constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. 1) In light of the fact that even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking is an administrative agency’s discretionary act, today’s automobile is the mass means of transportation and accordingly the increase in traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result of the increase in the traffic accident caused by drinking driving, etc., the need for public interest is very great (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997).