1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (D) on the ground that “Around September 20, 2014, at around 21:35, the Defendant driven a vehicle C in a state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.12% in front of the apartment apartment B in the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and caused an ordinary traffic accident with two ordinary persons around the world” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion opened the E astronomical branch, and thereafter, laundrys are delivered by driving the train.

The plaintiff is responsible for the livelihood of the mother, spouse, and two children, and there was no personal injury due to traffic accidents, and the damage of the property was minor and the victim was fully compensated and agreed.

Since the instant disposition is excessively harsh, it is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) In light of today’s current situation where a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly the result of a traffic accident caused by a drunk driving is frequently involved, the need for public interest to prevent a traffic accident caused by a drunk driving is very important. Therefore, the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation of the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).