1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 17, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driving license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on July 18, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B automobiles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.229% in front of the Dong-dong-dong (Seoul Metropolitan Government) on the front of the Dong-dong-dong (Seoul Metropolitan Government).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause personal injury due to drinking alcohol, the Plaintiff was driving without accident for 13 years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s substitute driving after drinking alcohol, the Plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation, the Plaintiff is working at the development team of the automobile parts manufacturing company located in Ulsan-gun, and the Plaintiff is obliged to obtain a frequent driver’s license due to frequent business trips and external travel, and the Plaintiff must support his parent, the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused the Plaintiff’s discretionary power by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

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).