1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 29, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on October 27, 2017, on the grounds that the Plaintiff driven a B car while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.125% at the front of the Seongbuk-dong Busan Seodong Middle School.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the plaintiff allegedly obstructed traffic flow due to drinking driving or did not cause a traffic accident, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration similar to 0.1% of the depositer whose blood alcohol level is 0.1% which is the criteria for the revocation of driver's license, the plaintiff makes a net confession, is in depth, and the plaintiff is engaged in mechanical maintenance business, and the plaintiff is engaged in the vehicle maintenance business. In order to perform his duties, the driver's vehicle driving is essential and the parent's driving is essential for long distance travel, etc., the disposition of this case is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshly

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).