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 August 18, 2014, at around 18:57, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol with 0.102% of alcohol content. Accordingly, on September 18, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large scale) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the plaintiff, but [the ground for recognition] Gap evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff demanded expenses more than the amount promised to have been paid to the plaintiff who was a substitute driver to drink the ship and the plaintiff with the pleasure of finding employment, and was thought to be fine and drive as he did not drink the drinking, and when about about about 17 km, the accident of collision with the vehicle that was protruding from the Gap-alleyway occurred, and the above accident is almost the other party's negligence. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the disadvantage of the plaintiff is considerably larger than the public interest to be achieved, and it is unlawful as it abuses the discretionary power.

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 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, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content exceeds the driver’s license revocation standard, it is difficult to recognize the inevitable nature of a drunk driving, that the driving distance reaches approximately 17 km, that the Plaintiff has the power of drinking driving in 2004 and 2007, and that there are two or more so-called driving skills under the law.