1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 7, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class II ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on June 7, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.174% on the front of a public parking lot located in the Dong-dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to take on his house due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s ordinary fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor. The Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s substitute fluor

B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.