The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a person who obtained a driver's license drives a drunk, whether the driver's license is revoked shall be deemed to be the discretionary act of the administrative agency. However, in light of the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving and the suspicion of its result, the necessity of public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be more emphasized. In the revocation of the driver's license, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation should be emphasized.

(2) On September 11, 2016, the lower court: (a) acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff driven a two-dimensional motor vehicle with engine displacement 125cc engine displacement at around 0.140% under the influence of alcohol on September 11, 2016; (b) on October 18, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle driver’s license [Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, and Class 2] as of October 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (c) determined that the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation license was unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s appointment as a local driving assistant and faithfully worked for about 21 years; (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation license was revoked; (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation license was revoked from his/her workplace to his/her family members; and (d) the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation license was not likely to be discharged or removed from his/her family; and (d) the Plaintiff’s vehicle type 181.

3. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Class 1 large, class 1 ordinary, and class 1 for the plaintiff.