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 October 4, 2014, at around 23:10, the Plaintiff driven B benz car on the road front of the Gangseo-gu, Seoul Northern-ro, 675, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.167% of alcohol level.

B. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (license number: C) on December 28, 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 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful since the instant disposition is an abuse of discretion, in light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff, as a member of “D,” a computer-related product distribution company, is engaged in the business of delivering the product to the customer, and thus requires a driver’s license, and that the city bus, while waiting for a proxy engineer, she was driving on the wind that she flicks and flicks.

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings are recognized based on the health care unit, the aforementioned evidence and the entire pleadings.