1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 21, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for Class 1 large, Class 1 ordinary, Class 1 special bitr(C) as of December 19, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that “In the front of the white ginseng distance located in the Jung-gu, Daejeon at around October 29, 2014, the Defendant driven Bho-do in the state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.179%.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 2 and 16 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been up to four streets at the Bosung-dong elementary school located in Busan-dong by drinking alcohol and by allowing a substitute driver to drive a motor vehicle owned by the Plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff's house should enter the alley, so it is difficult if the representative driver re-enters the road with a large amount of driver's license, and the plaintiff paid a fee to the proxy driver and returned the fee to him/her, and driving about about 100 meters of the alley.

The plaintiff did not cause any physical damage while driving under influence, and is hard to say that he will not drive under influence in the future.

The instant disposition is an illegal or unfair disposition that is contrary to the legislative purpose, or that deviates from appropriate discretion.

B. Determination 1) In light of today’s current situation where a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly a large amount of driver’s license is issued, and the result of a traffic accident caused by a drunk driving is frequently involved, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving is very great. Therefore, when the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving is made, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party who will be incurred due to the revocation should be emphasized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007.).