1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On July 26, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on August 21, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a D motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.196% in front of the Busan Southern-gu B apartment Cdong on the road.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had a substitute driver after drinking the above vehicle to have arrived at the apartment complex of the apartment complex of the plaintiff, and then sent the substitute driver first and parked, and the plaintiff used the substitute driver after drinking, and actively cooperated in investigation, and the plaintiff is in charge of the duty of freight loading supervision while working at the shipping company. Considering the characteristics of the occupation where the driver's license is essential due to the nature of the occupation where the driver's license should make a business trip at the port of each country, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it abused the plaintiff's discretion too harshly and abused it.

B. Determination 1) 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 today’s mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver’s license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).