1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is driving B vehicles under the influence of alcohol at around 02:40 on December 18, 2014, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.12%.

B. Accordingly, on January 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke a Class 1 large, Class 1 ordinary, and Class 2 ordinary driving license to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is engaged in cargo transportation business, so it is necessary to obtain a driver’s license for his/her family’s livelihood, and considering various circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff received a third degree of disability from an accident and does not have any means to maintain his/her livelihood other than driving, and the circumstances leading to drinking without any contact with the driver on behalf of the Plaintiff, the instant disposition by the Defendant constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. 1) In light of the fact that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking is an administrative agency's discretionary act, today's mass means of transportation, and accordingly, the increase in traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result of the increase in the driver's license on the ground of drinking, etc., the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is very large (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). Therefore, when the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation. 2) In light of the above legal principles, according to the above evidence examined, the Plaintiff is driving under the influence of drinking in a severe condition of 0.12% alcohol level in blood alcohol.