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 December 26, 2014, at around 23:00, the Plaintiff driven the DK5 car volume on the front of the cafeteria located in the Guc-si B while under the influence of alcohol by 0.178% of alcohol level.

B. On January 12, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on February 7, 2015 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving. As of February 7, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class large vehicle and the first-class ordinary vehicle driving license (license number: E).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence of Nos. 1 to 14, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion from the F point of Korea, Costco Korea Co., Ltd. to refund and exchange to G manager at any time, and the time to work cannot use public transportation at any time between 2:00 p.m. and 5:0 p.m., the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, and the Plaintiff’s depth is against drinking driving, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretionary authority.

B. Even if the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest should be emphasized to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative action, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health class, the evidence mentioned above, and the purport of the entire pleadings.