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 December 3, 2017, the Plaintiff is driving a D motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.114% at the frontway located in Busan Yagu, Busan Yagu, on December 3, 2017.

The parking vehicle caused a traffic accident that shocks E vehicles.

B. Accordingly, on December 19, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class 2 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.114% with blood alcohol content.”

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1-4, Eul evidence 4-1-2, Eul evidence 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not drink alcohol in the ordinary room. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion was made by contact with the Plaintiff that he was aware of the fact at the time of the instant case, the Plaintiff was reported to the police and expressed the fact of drinking, that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for maintaining the livelihood of the Plaintiff and the wife, and that there was no risk of recidivism beyond 70 years of age, the instant disposition abused discretion.

B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of a drunk driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of the situation where a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly the issuance of a driver's license, the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest should be more emphasized. In the revocation of a driver's license, unlike the revocation of a common beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be more emphasized to prevent the revocation rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1449 Decided May 24, 2012