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 11, 2017, at around 00:29, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.139% at the front of the Square of the Gyeongcheon Bathing Beach.

B. On September 4, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license on the ground of drinking driving.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on November 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 20 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had been engaged in an accidentless driving for seven years, and that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary for vocational performance and maintenance of livelihood due to the nature of the work performed by the power-driven facility maintenance business, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing its discretion.

B. The instant disposition is based on Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, “the disposition of this case’s revocation of driver’s license”

2. In light of the fact that the above disposition criteria conform to subparagraph 2 of the individual disposition criteria, and there is no reasonable ground to deem the above disposition criteria to be inconsistent with the Constitution or laws, and that the blood alcohol concentration is considerably high by 0.139%, that there is no inevitable circumstance that the Plaintiff is bound to drive under the influence of alcohol, and that the administrative agency cannot be deemed to have necessarily mitigated the disposition due to the necessity of a driver's license for the performance of occupation and the maintenance of livelihood of his family members, etc., even if considering the various circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff sufficiently, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff's personal disadvantage due to the disposition in this case is greater than the necessity for public interest

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is legitimate disposition taken within the scope of discretion.