1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (license number: E) as of December 22, 2015 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on November 20, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of evidence of Nos. 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is operating a construction company of the current hospital of imported trees, and the revocation of a driver’s license may seriously obstruct supply, construction, and business, and the Plaintiff bears considerable debts while supporting the subsidiaries with physical disability Grade IV from about 15 years ago as unmarried, the circumstances leading to the instant drinking driving was also regulated upon the Plaintiff’s request, and there was no record of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol so far, the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff excessively harshly abused and abused discretion.

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).