1. The Defendant’s revocation of the license granted to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at around 03:49, driven a vehicle B, which is owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) at a 0.129% level at the front of his/her residence, located in Gangwon-gu, Yangwon-gun C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On February 16, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke all Class 1 driver’s license and ordinary driver’s license (D) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on April 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 7 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was found to have been conducted in order for his wife to recover after drinking alcohol and diving. The plaintiff was found to have no record of driving alcohol, and the plaintiff was ex officio due to the disposition of this case when he worked as E belonging to the Yang-gu Office of Education, and the driver's license of this case is required to be reinstated. In light of the fact that the driver's license of this case is required to be reinstated, the disposition of this case is deemed to have been excessively harsh to the plaintiff compared to the public interest purpose that he intends to achieve, and is illegal to have exceeded or abused the discretion.

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms ought to be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages that an individual would suffer by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Hun