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 October 5, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on December 29, 201, and around 22:20 on December 29, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.125% of blood alcohol level, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at around 10 meters, and was under the influence of alcohol at around 34:0,000,000,000 for 34,000,000,000.

B. Accordingly, on January 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on February 4, 2016, but was dismissed on February 29, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff's assertion was closed at around 22:00, because the plaintiff moved the plaintiff's vehicle from the underground parking lot to the outside of the building at around 21:48, the plaintiff's vehicle was deducted from the underground parking lot at around 21:48, and therefore parked again in the road and waited for a substitute engineer at the parking lot entrance, but the vehicle was opened and opened, and the driver was in contact with the driver, and eventually, the plaintiff was reported that the driver was a drinking driver, and thus, the plaintiff was found to have conducted a drinking test. Since the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of a drinking driver's license as of September 198, the plaintiff did not have a drinking driving force after the disposition of a drinking driver was imposed, and the plaintiff's driver's license was revoked due to frequent visits as the director of the tax accountant office, and the disposition at this case is unlawful because it is excessively harsh to the plaintiff, and it constitutes a violation of discretionary authority.

B. On the one hand, as the number of vehicles rapidly increased and the number of driver's licenses are issued in large volume, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing as traffic conditions are congested on the one hand, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequent and the results are harsh.