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

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff served as a delivery engineer at the home-based company, and thus requires a driver’s license due to the occupational characteristics, makes it very difficult for his family’s livelihood due to the revocation of the driver’s license, and makes a person to drive inevitably due to his or her absence of choice at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case. In light of the above, the instant disposition is deemed to have a great disadvantage for the Plaintiff as a result of the need for public interest, and thus is unlawful

B. In today’s determination, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the large number of driver’s licenses is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s licenses on the ground of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party to be incurred due to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). It does not seem that there are such urgent and inevitable circumstances that the Plaintiff could not avoid drinking driving at the time of the instant drunk driving.