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 November 21, 201, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver’s license for a Class 1 ordinary motor vehicle from the Defendant.

B. On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff driven CM3 vehicles owned by the Plaintiff while under the influence of alcohol of 0.119% on blood alcohol level around 23:01, and moved from the Plaintiff’s residence located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun to Ulsan-si Cheongsan-si Cheongsan-si.

C. Accordingly, on January 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the license stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on January 27, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s business completion of the Plaintiff’s alleged company’s work and the fact that he/she thought that he/she performed drinking while drinking alcohol with a few times of time, and that he/she did so, the pertinent disposition is unlawful since it exceeds the public interest that the Plaintiff suffered due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful since it exceeds the discretionary power, in light of the following: (a) the police officer’s measure of drinking alcohol was conducted to respond to the police officer’s demand for the measurement of drinking alcohol netly; (b) the police officer’s accumulated 0.19% of the amount of deposit accumulated in the process; (c) there was no past history of driving alcohol; (d) the person is engaged in driving duty; and (e) the person is engaged in driving duty; and (e) the person must support alone.

B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages that an individual would suffer by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.