1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 04:00 on July 12, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a passenger car in B B in the agricultural and fishery product shooting distance located in the Dong-dong while in a safe state (the result of a smoking measurement) while under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant, applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on July 24, 2017, revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) as of August 27, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 당일 민속주점에서 거래처 영업팀과 접대회식을 마친 다음 2시간 넘게 잠을 이겨가며 대리운전기사를 기다리다가 깜빡 잠이 들었고, 이후 직접 운전대를 잡았다가 음주운전이 단속되었다.

Considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not inflict personal injury on others due to drinking driving at the time, currently engaging in the wholesale and retail business of medical appliances, and the need for a driver's license for contract, supply, and A/S with the National Medical Center, and the spouse who has been pregnant three months have to support and pay the lease loan, etc., the instant disposition is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power because it is too harsh to 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, and the seriousness of the result, 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 on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.