1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 01:08 on June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol, driven the B-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 3, Eul 4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had a family meeting simply drinking alcohol, and returned to a substitute engineer, but the plaintiff was driving on behalf of the elderly substitute engineer for parking.

In addition to these circumstances, considering the fact that the driving distance at the time is very short and high, and that the level of drinking alcohol is currently high, and that the driver's license is essential because the gas delivery leads to the livelihood, the instant disposition is in violation of the law that deviates from or abused the discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk 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 a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized. In the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving, unlike the revocation of ordinary beneficial administrative act, the ordinary preventive aspect should be emphasized more than that of the party’s disadvantage to be prevented (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).