1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 4, 2014, at around 05:30, the Plaintiff driven a B vehicle while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.084%, resulting in a traffic accident involving personal damage of one of the former.

B. Accordingly, on July 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s breath measurement method may vary depending on the physical condition and measurement method of the person. The result may be lowered when considering the error of the measuring instrument itself, the Plaintiff is required to work as a production worker. As such, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for maintaining the workplace and maintaining his family’s livelihood, supporting the parent, who is a basic livelihood recipient, agreed with the victim, and having no history of traffic accident, etc., the Defendant’s disposition of this case constitutes an unlawful case where it deviates from or abused discretionary power.

B. 1) In light of the fact that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking is an administrative agency's discretionary act, today's mass means of transportation, and accordingly, the increase in traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result of the increase in the driver's license on the ground of drinking, etc., the necessity for public interest is very great (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). Therefore, the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving is a general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.