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 September 24, 2014, at around 20:46, the Plaintiff driven B physical-person car on the Liberia road located in the Yancheon-si Eup's mobile bridge while under the influence of alcohol by 0.106% of alcohol level.

B. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (license number: C) on November 11, 2014 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, No. 1 to 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff operates the selective sales business. Considering the various circumstances such as the fact that the driver's license is essential in order to maintain the plaintiff's livelihood because there are many cases in which the plaintiff, other than employees, should be viewed as the selective sales business by driving directly, the plaintiff's blood alcohol level exceeds 0.06%, the plaintiff's blood alcohol level exceeds 0.06%, the damage to the human resources and property caused by drinking driving is not significant, and the defendant's disposition of this case constitutes an abuse of discretionary power against the plaintiff.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the general beneficial administrative act.