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 January 14, 2014, at around 23:35, the Plaintiff driven B Poter Ⅱ while under the influence of alcohol by 0.113%, and the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on February 18, 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 May 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 8, Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) sent a written form of illness to the Plaintiff after drinking and drinking; and (b) took a substitute driver who intends to bring about a vehicle at the house in the delivery order on the following day; (c) caused a contact accident by making an agent to inevitably drive the vehicle before front of the apartment; (d) there was no traffic accident personnel damage; and (e) support a divorce and a divorce, and maintenance of livelihood by individual cargo driving, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary. In light of the above, the instant disposition is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is considerably larger than the public interest to be achieved thereby, and thus, the instant disposition is deemed unlawful.

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 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) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration exceeds the driver’s license revocation standard, and it is difficult to recognize the inevitable nature of the instant drinking driving.