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 October 17, 2014, at around 23:18, the Plaintiff driven B IMB oil under the influence of alcohol by 0.122%, and the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on October 10, 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 January 6, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 11, and Eul evidence 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful since the instant disposition is against the Plaintiff’s disadvantage, which is considerably larger than the public interest to be achieved, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was a meal with the president of the business; and (b) the Plaintiff was to drive the drinking to a second place at a distance of about 200 meters after drinking; (c) the Plaintiff was to use the 15 times a month average; and (d) there were family members to support the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving license; and (e) the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving license is necessary for the company’s operation.

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) In full view of all the circumstances as to the instant case, 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, and the Plaintiff again led to the instant drunk driving even in 197 and 2002, even if he had the record of driving under the influence of alcohol.