1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 19, 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 December 12, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.129% from the front side of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City YGlusle-dong, Gangseo-gu.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is due to a yellow disorder, and the Plaintiff’s large children have to undergo hospital treatment twice a month due to an acute disorder, as well as an emergency situation may arise, and thus, the Plaintiff is subject to a disposition of suspension of driver’s license on July 27, 2005, but the Plaintiff was not subject to a disposition of suspension of driving license on the ground of drinking driving at the time. However, the Plaintiff was trying to raise an objection to the said disposition due to the Plaintiff’s failure to drive under the influence of alcohol at the time, and the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the said disposition on the wind that is special amnesty at the time, and the Plaintiff was dismissed from the office of recommendation on March 31, 2018, and the Plaintiff’s depth is against the Plaintiff. In light of the above, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary power as it is too harsh to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking 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 drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.