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 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary vehicle driving license as of November 6, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a knife vehicle with approximately 20 kilometers around the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seoul, on the street while under the influence of alcohol of 01:24% of the blood alcohol content on September 5, 2014.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is working as a driver of the vehicle of the travel company and is living with the driver, and has an exemplary driving experience for the past 22 years, such as drinking driving and having no experience in violation of laws and regulations, support the elderly's father and wife, and two children. Although the plaintiff was forced to drive in order to return home materials that cannot be accumulated in the body due to drinking, the defendant's disposition of this case is a deviation or abuse of discretion.

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 must be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who is subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of the general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).