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

A. On January 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.125% of blood alcohol level on December 6, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle for B in the south-do Gyeongdo-ro 1922-ro 8-1 No. 1922-ro to the front corner of the said Eup convenience store (hereinafter “instant disposition”).” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was ruled dismissed on June 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of all circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff, while running a furniture delivery business by driving, supports alone, his wife and four children difficult, and the application of mitigation standards under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, etc., the instant disposition is too harsh and is an abuse of 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 should be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of a driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of a general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). Thus, the general preventive aspect for establishing traffic order and social safety should be more considered than the disadvantage of the plaintiff subject to the disposition in this case.

The plaintiff's driver's license is essential in personal circumstances, but it is also regulated.