1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On June 21, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driving license for Class 2 ordinary driving license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on July 5, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B physical-man driver’s license under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.107% on the front of the name bridge located in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 원고가 대리운전기사를 불렀으나, 캄캄한 밤이어서 정확한 위치를 설명하기 어렵고, 대리운전업체에서도 위치확인이 되지 않는다고 하여 대로변까지 가기 위하여 운전을 하게 된 점, 원고는 복사기 등 판매 대리점을 운영하고 있는데, 업무특성상 자동차운전면허가 반드시 필요한 점, 원고가 발달장애 1급의 자녀를 부양해야 하는 점 등을 감안하면, 이 사건 처분은 원고에게 너무 가혹하여 재량권을 일탈남용한 것이어서 위법하다.

B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving is an administrative agency’s discretionary act, in light of today’s mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver’s license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).