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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is conducting surveying business at the construction site, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for his/her occupation to load various equipment on the vehicle and to leave the nationwide site, and that he/she lives in front of a usual large donation and prior living, etc., the Defendant’s disposition of this case is deemed to be excessive disadvantages suffered by the Plaintiff compared to the needs of public interest, and thus, it is unlawful as it goes against the discretionary authority.

B. In today’s determination, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the number of driver’s licenses is growing, and 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 grounds of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party that would have been 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 is any inevitable circumstance that the Plaintiff could not avoid drinking driving at the time of regulating a drunk driving, and the degree of alcohol alcohol content at the time of crackdown is 0.28%.