1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 20, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s license for small-sized vehicles (license number) as of July 2, 2016, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven D Kawn car on the front road located in the Goi-gu, Goi-gu, Young-si (U.S.) with a 0.122% alcohol content, on the grounds that the Plaintiff driven the D Kanan car in the front road located in the Gi-gu, Young-gu (U.S.) under the influence of alcohol on May 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 4, 5, Eul 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff was discovered in the course of moving a vehicle to a place where a proxy engineer is located while waiting for a substitute driver after drinking a drinking test. In addition to the above circumstances, the plaintiff was found to have not driven a drinking driver once more than 29 years after acquiring the driver's license and then there is a risk of job suspension when the driver's license is revoked, and where the driver's license is revoked due to the financial liabilities of a large amount, the disposition of this case constitutes an abuse of discretion too harshly harsh discretion by the plaintiff.

B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking 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 drinking driving, the suspicion of its consequences, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more emphasized.