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 January 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke all of the Plaintiff’s first-class, first-class, first-class, and first-class driver’s licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a B car under the influence of alcohol content of about 400 meters from the parking lot to the front day of the GSmarket in the same Dong and Dong, regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s day was located in the Sincheon-si, Sincheon-si around 22:46, December 27, 2014” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on March 3, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that he had an exemplary driving experience that does not violate the laws and regulations, and that the Plaintiff supported his parents by driving a cargo vehicle and maintains their livelihood, the instant disposition is so harsh that it constitutes an abuse of discretionary power.

B. In the modern society where a motor vehicle becomes a public and universal means of transportation, the increase of traffic accidents and the harm and injury caused by drinking driving should be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of a driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of a general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). Thus, the general preventive aspect for establishing traffic order and social safety should be more considered than the disadvantage of the plaintiff subject to the disposition in this case.

Although the driver's license is essential to maintain the plaintiff's livelihood, each of the above evidence.