1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 10, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on April 6, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B automobiles while under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.19% in front of, and under the influence of, the 03:40 percent of blood alcohol on the front of, the Geum-gu, Geum-gu, Busan (YA)-dong.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff alleged a drinking alcohol driver, but the Plaintiff returned to Korea using his substitute driving after normal drinking, and the Plaintiff was not a substitute driving engineer at the time of the instant drinking alcohol driving, which led to the Plaintiff’s direct driving, which led to the Plaintiff’s confession of all crimes after driving under the influence of alcohol, and active cooperation in investigation, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license to maintain his livelihood is essential in relation to the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s direct driving of his driver and the Plaintiff’s delivery of the tobacco to his customer while entering the nation’s seat, and the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff and thus constitutes an abuse of discretionary power.

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 Supreme Court Decision 2012Du105, May 24, 2012).