1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case was as of March 6, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class I and Class I large vehicle driving, respectively, on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven B vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.132% on the front of the Kugu 4-dong, Busan Shipping Daegu, about February 21, 2015.”

The key issue of this case is whether the disposition of this case was an error of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance at the court of first instance: ① the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content is 0.132% and clearly exceeds 0.1% that meets the individual criteria for revocation of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act; ② there were inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff is bound to drive under the influence of alcohol.

In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no circumstance to consider the circumstances leading up to drinking alcohol; (b) the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident leading to the KT Support Team while driving the instant drinking vehicle; (c) the Plaintiff’s occupation and the need for a driver’s license to maintain the livelihood of his family members; and (d) the administrative agency cannot be deemed to have necessarily mitigated the relevant disposition; and (e) the Plaintiff may obtain a driver’s license again after the lapse of the disqualified period under Article 82(2) of the Road Traffic Act even if the instant disposition is revoked, the Plaintiff determined that the instant disposition was a legitimate disposition taken within the scope of discretionary authority on the ground that the public interest need to achieve the instant disposition, even if considering all of the allegations presented by the Plaintiff, cannot be deemed to be less than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would incur.

2. The judgment of this court and the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the cancellation of the private taxi license due to the disposition of this case, resulting in enormous impediment to livelihood, and the plaintiff's driver's license.