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 March 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 2 ordinary license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven the Category 2 motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.120% by driving approximately 6 km from the non-explosion of both weeks to the 3rd State of Masadong, Masadong, Masa-dong, Masa-dong, Masa-dong, Masa-dong, Masa-dong, Masa-dong, Masa-dong, to the Masa-dong, Masa-dong, Masa-dong.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on May 1, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5, 13, and the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is serving as a truck driver and maintains his family’s livelihood while serving as a truck driver, and the Plaintiff had been driving in order to search for the rest of play with the physically handicapped children while making a multi-level communication with the wife while driving the knife with the knife while driving the knife, etc., the instant disposition is too harsh, and thus was abused or abused by discretionary authority.

B. In the modern society where a motor vehicle becomes a public and universal means of transportation, the increase of traffic accidents and the harm and injury caused by drinking driving should be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of a driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of a general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). Thus, the general preventive aspect for establishing traffic order and social safety should be more considered than the disadvantage of the plaintiff subject to the disposition in this case.

The plaintiff's occupation and occupation.