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 January 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at around 03:50 on a 0.124% alcohol level, while driving a B-learning car on the front of the 62 locked-ro, Songpa-gu, Seoul, as a locked-ro, and caused a traffic accident (two light lights).

B. On February 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015, to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class and second-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 1 to No. 15, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of various circumstances, including the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s position inevitably fell under the relationship between the Plaintiff’s employee and the Plaintiff’s employee, the Plaintiff’s position requires the Plaintiff’s driver’s license to perform his/her duties, and the Plaintiff’s degree of blood alcohol is likely to have been measured high due to the use of the oral administration at the time of the alcohol measurement, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. Even if the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest should be emphasized to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative action, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du1048 Decided March 27, 1998, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051 Decided May 24, 2012, etc.).