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 March 31, 2015, at around 23:30, the Plaintiff driven BM5 car on the front of the wood audit distance located on the one-way 1-way road in Heunging City while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.141% of alcohol level.

B. On April 9, 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; (b) revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (license number: C) on May 11, 2015, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, No. 1 to 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of various circumstances, including the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff works as a truck driver with a trucking transport permit, and thus, the driver’s license is essential to perform his/her duties, the Plaintiff’s continuous driving should continue to be conducted for the purpose of maintaining his/her livelihood due to the relationship with which two children are supported by a person who is divorced from his/her spouse, and the mistake of drinking driving is recognized and is against the law, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is illegal 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, 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 aforementioned legal principles, the health class, the evidence and the arguments mentioned above are presented.