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 November 16, 2017, at around 22:30, the Plaintiff is driving B vehicles on the roads of the Dong-gu Office Building Entry in Busan, Daegu, Daegu, Busan.

The plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration was confirmed to be 0.213% as a result of the respiratory measurement, and it was confirmed to be 0.181% as a result of the plaintiff's request for blood collection inspection.

B. Accordingly, on December 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.181% with blood alcohol content.”

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1-6, Eul evidence 4-1-2, Eul evidence 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not obstruct traffic or cause traffic accidents, the Plaintiff’s endeavored to avoid the ordinary drunk driving, the Plaintiff’s confessions the fact of drunk driving and is against depth, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain the livelihood of the Plaintiff and his family members, the instant disposition abused and abused discretion.

B. 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 the situation where a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly the issuance of a driver's license, the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest should be more emphasized. In the revocation of a driver's license, unlike the revocation of a common beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be more emphasized to prevent the revocation rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.

Supreme Court on May 24, 2012