1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 8, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of August 12, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven C vehicles while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.108% on the roads located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu B around June 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he had obtained a driver’s license in 1981 and led to his livelihood from January 201 to January 2014, 201, and is currently trying to be employed as a driver of an urban bus. In light of the fact that his family’s livelihood is extremely difficult because he could not be employed upon the cancellation of his driver’s license, that he had no record of driving or traffic accident prior to the instant case, and that his depth reflects on the drinking driving of this case, the Defendant’s disposition in this case is against the need of public interest, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition in this case is against the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff, and thus is unlawful

B. In today’s determination, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the large number of driver’s licenses is growing, and traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving is very great. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s licenses on the grounds of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).