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 5, 2014, at around 20:47, the Plaintiff driven B Poter Cargo on the front side of the Habart located in the Habn-dong of the wife population, while under the influence of alcohol, at least 0.118% of alcohol level.

B. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving. As of November 26, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license for Class I large, Class I ordinary, and Class II ordinary vehicle driving (license number: C).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful as it deviatess from and abused discretion, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s operation of a car maintenance shop with the trade name of “D” requires a driver’s license; (b) drinking water is merely 0.118%; and (c) the Plaintiff has been exemplary driving after obtaining the driver’s license.

B. Even if the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest should be emphasized to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative action, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du1048 Decided March 27, 1998, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051 Decided May 24, 2012, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant case are based on the health care unit, the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings.