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 April 19, 1982, the Plaintiff acquired Class II ordinary motor vehicle driver’s license (B).

On May 19, 2015, at around 13:42, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.103%, and the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of alcohol.

B. Accordingly, on June 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on August 13, 2015, but was dismissed on September 8, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that the blood alcohol level at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion is 0.103%, and that the Plaintiff is in need of driving while driving a concrete pumps, the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff excessively harshs the Plaintiff and deviates from and abused its discretion.

B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing due to the rapid increase of motor vehicles today, the number of driver's licenses of motor vehicles is issued in large quantities, and traffic conditions are congested on the day, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Therefore, in revocation of driver's licenses on the grounds of drinking driving on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike revocation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, and it should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs 2, 3, and 8, and the entire purport of pleadings, are the level of drunk driving at the time of the Plaintiff.