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 August 27, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven approximately 8-9m of 8-9m in the street in front of C located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, on August 9, 2014, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.161%.”

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 16 (including each number in case of additional evidence), the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was first discovered through a drunk driving after acquiring a driver's license on July 27, 1994, and that for commuting to and from work, the vehicle is essential for driving, and that the substitute driver's driver's vehicle was unable to get off his/her vehicle due to the defect that the plaintiff moved his/her vehicle, and thereafter, he/she could not get off his/her vehicle, but thereafter he/she had a ditch with the article, and that the substitute driver reported the plaintiff to the police due to a drunk driving. In light of all circumstances, the defendant's disposition of this case was excessively harsh and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was deviates from or abused

B. In the modern society where a motor vehicle becomes a public and universal means of transportation, the increase of traffic accidents and the harm and injury caused by drinking driving must be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of a driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of a general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). The plaintiff due to the instant disposition.