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 June 3, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B), and around 05:05 on May 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.172% of blood alcohol level, and controlled the chand driving at approximately 100 meters in front of the D apartment route in Young-gu, Young-gu.

B. Accordingly, on June 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on June 15, 2016, but was dismissed on July 22, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was driven at a place where a proxy engineer was easily found in order to have the Plaintiff returned home at the time; and (b) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential when the driver’s license is revoked due to frequent local agency business trips; and (c) the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff excessively harshed the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretionary authority.

B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing due to the rapid increase of motor vehicles today, the number of driver's licenses of motor vehicles is issued in large quantities, and traffic conditions are congested on the day, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Therefore, in revocation of driver's licenses on the grounds of drinking driving on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike revocation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, and it should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021 Decided December 27, 2007, etc.).