1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On December 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license (hereinafter the instant disposition) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on January 16, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.120% in front of the Cju store located in Jung-gu, Busan, Busan, on the grounds that he/she driven a D car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.120%.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had been driving a substitute driver after normal drinking. In light of the fact that the female-friendly group, who had been injured by the plaintiff at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol of this case, was aware that the female-friendly group was unable to return to Korea due to the plaintiff, and had the plaintiff drive directly at a multilevel. The plaintiff led to the confession of all crimes after driving under the influence of alcohol and actively cooperate in investigation, and the plaintiff must deliver alcoholic beverages to the customer in the liquor company, and engage in the business of managing the customer and discovering new customers, and the driver's license should be revoked, the disposition of this case is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power by excessively harsh to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk 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 a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation than the disadvantage of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).