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

A. On September 30, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver’s license (B) on September 30, 2003, and driven by a driver. On October 11, 2015, at around 01:11, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol concentration, and was under the influence of driving, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol.

B. Accordingly, on November 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a drinking alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on November 5, 2015, but was dismissed on December 1, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 당일 음주 후 상당시간 경과하여 술에서 깼을 것으로 착각한 점, 원고는 2003. 운전면허를 취득한 이래 음주운전은 물론 교통사고나 법규위반을 한 적이 없이 모범적으로 운전하여 왔고 이 사건 당시에도 운전 중 어떠한 사고도 야기하지 않은 점, 원고는 집게차를 운전하는 기사로서 운전이 필수적이고 운전면허가 취소된다면 원고 및 가족의 생계수단 조차 막막해 지는 점 등을 고려하면, 이 사건 처분은 지나치게 가혹하여 그 재량권을 일탈, 남용한 경우에 해당하여 위법하다.

B. In today’s rise in the number of vehicles today, and the number of driver’s licenses are issued in large volume, so the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is growing, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s licenses on the grounds of drinking driving is different from revocation of ordinary beneficial administrative acts.