1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 08:00 on September 17, 2016, the instant disposition was issued against the Plaintiff’s second-class ordinary vehicle driver’s license (license number: C) as of October 31, 2016 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on October 7, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a eropoch-sized car from the sphere of 1323 paths, as it was driven under the influence of alcohol content of 0.17%.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Eul 4 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff is unfair to cancel the driver's license only on the basis of the result of the drinking test conducted once again without attempting blood sampling, the plaintiff's acquisition of the driver's license did not have any alcohol driving or traffic accident history, the plaintiff is in need of a driver's license for commuting to and from work as a business employee, and the plaintiff is in need of a driver's license for work and business activities, and must support the old-parent's parents because the plaintiff is too harsh, and 2 kn't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl's own fl's own fl's own fl's own fl's own fl's own fl's own fl's own fl's own fl's own fl'

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.