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 31, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.089% of alcohol level around 01:40.

B. Accordingly, on November 29, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the driver’s license (Class 1 large) against the Plaintiff by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

A claim for administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on February 11, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that there was no damage caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion, the confession, etc., and the fact that the driver’s license is absolutely necessary for business activities such as cargo transport business, and the occurrence of difficulties in job-seeking, maintenance of livelihood, debt redemption, and financial support when the driver’s license is revoked, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, since it considerably exceeds the disadvantage of the Plaintiff that is infringed on the public interest to be achieved.

B. In light of the fact that one motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is greater as the traffic situation becomes complicated, and the traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate driving to protect the majority of drivers and pedestrians, the need for public interest in preventing traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be more emphasized, and the revocation of driver's license should be more emphasized than the disadvantage suffered by the parties due to the revocation of the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.