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 August 9, 2015, around 04:20 on August 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was under the influence of driving B passenger cars with blood alcohol concentration of 0.11% at the back of Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class II ordinary car driving license (C) on September 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was a drunk driving as indicated in the preceding paragraph.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on August 26, 2015, but the said claim was dismissed on October 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 9, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he drinkd with his customer on his day with his customer.

Although intending to teach a substitute driver, the reservation has been delayed for long time and the driver has not been able to feel.

The plaintiff is a person who operates the wholesale and retail business of medical appliances and needs a vehicle in light of the characteristics of the job.

In full view of all the circumstances, the instant disposition was erroneous in the abuse of discretionary power.

B. In light of the fact that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking, such as drinking driving 1, is an administrative agency's discretionary act, today's mass means of transportation and accordingly, the increase in traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the result of the increase in the driver's license, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is very large. Therefore, when the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is revoked on the ground of drinking driving, the general preventive aspect is more likely to prevent the revocation rather than the disadvantage of the party to be suffered due to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.