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 February 18, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II ordinary motor vehicle driver’s license (B) on January 30, 2015, and around 22:55 on May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at around 0.131% of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.5% on May 26, 2016, and the Plaintiff was under the influence of drinking.

B. Accordingly, on July 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 12, 2016, but was dismissed on September 20, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a person engaged in the selective transport business and whose vocational driver’s license is essential and revoked, and his family’s livelihood is difficult due to the impossibility of running the selective transport business if his driver’s license is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s visual disability of class 6, etc., the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff was excessively harsh and thus, constitutes an abuse of the discretionary authority.

B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing due to the rapid increase of motor vehicles today, the number of driver's licenses of motor vehicles is issued in large quantities, and traffic conditions are congested on the day, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Therefore, in revocation of driver's licenses on the grounds of drinking driving on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike revocation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, and it should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). Gyptop, Nos. 7 and 8.