1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On the ground that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.114% on June 9, 2014, the fact that the Defendant revoked the license of driving on July 3, 2014 that the Plaintiff rendered a disposition to revoke the license of driving on the Plaintiff on July 3, 2014 does not conflict between the parties, or that it is recognized as entry of Gap evidence 1.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in various delivery, transportation, customer parking management, etc. at the B Chinese house as a manager, was driving for returning home after the lapse of working hours on the day of the instant case, without refusing the alcoholic beverage that the flag lost.

B. At the time, the driver’s license of this case is unlawful as a disposition that deviatess from or abused the scope of the discretion of the Defendant, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not feel 3 residues in so-called so-called 10 minutes; and (b) the distance up to the house was drive close to 10 minutes; (c) the Plaintiff’s drinking water did not 0.114%; and (d) the Plaintiff’s occupation is essential.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) The revocation of a driver's license for driving under drinking belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency;

Even if a motor vehicle is a public means of transportation today, in light of the situation where a large volume of driver's license is issued, frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the results are harsh, it is very necessary to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving.

Therefore, the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving should be focused on the public interest aspect that should prevent the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the revocation of general beneficial administrative act.

B. The Plaintiff’s drinking alcohol level is considerably high at 0.14% at the time of the Plaintiff’s crackdown, i.e., various circumstances acknowledged to the purport of the entries and arguments as a whole, including evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and Nos. 1 through 11.