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 April 21, 2015, at around 22:40, the Plaintiff driven a C E-cub car on the front of the A-Fcubon Road while under the influence of alcohol by 0.146%.

B. On May 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary vehicle driver’s license (license number: D) as of June 4, 2015 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 3, Eul Nos. 1 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of various circumstances, including the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is engaged in driving service at the hotel, and the Plaintiff arrived at the house using the substitute driving, but was discovered while driving a vehicle at a level of about 150 meters at a different place in the mind for the occupants who work later than the next day, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

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, 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, it should be emphasized that the ordinary preventive aspect should be prevented rather than the disadvantage

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion is various.