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 May 26, 2014, at around 16:10, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing vehicles with a blood alcohol content of 0.182%, and the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s license on July 12, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on September 2, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, and Eul evidence No. 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is against the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be a disabled person with the first degree disability of the non-functional body disability, and that the Plaintiff caused a physical traffic accident while driving a car in the string of the Plaintiff’s entrance, but paid the total amount of damages through the insurance, and that the error is remarkably divided into an insurance policy. In light of the above, the instant disposition is unlawful as it has abused the Plaintiff’s disadvantage rather than that of the public interest to be achieved.

B. (1) Determination (1) In light of the fact that today’s automobiles are the mass means of transportation and accordingly a large amount of driver’s license is issued, and frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving occur and the results thereof are harsh, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is very large.

Therefore, the revocation of driver's license for driving on the ground of drinking driving cannot be emphasized the aspect of general prevention that should prevent drinking driving.

(2) As to the instant case, in full view of all the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content exceeds the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license, it is difficult to recognize the inevitable nature of a drunk driving, and the Plaintiff, even in 197 and 2008, had the record of revocation of a driver’s license due to a drunk driving, again led to the instant drunk driving.