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 May 8, 2015, at around 22:45, the Plaintiff driven a Bchip car volume on the front road near the Fywon Underground Road in the Suwon-gu Transferdong, Suwon-si, under the influence of alcohol by 0.130% of alcohol level.

B. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving; and (b) revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 driver’s license (license number: C) on June 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, No. 1 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is responsible for the management of the business and the employees of the company dispatched to the manpower dispatch company, i.e., Samdi&C, and considering various circumstances, such as the need for a driver's license in order to transport the employees to the dispatched company, and the fact that an employee who had drinking such as drinking is in need of a driver's license and was exposed to a close stop due to inconvenience in body, and the drinking driving was discovered, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it is an abuse of 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 instant case is deemed to have been rendered.