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 November 17, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven approximately 3.7 km from around the Ccafeteria located in Nam-si, Namyang-si, about 16:50 on October 27, 2014 to D, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.132%.”

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 6, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff, as a disabled person (class 2 of brain disease), has a livelihood through commission, substitute driving, etc., and has an exemplary driving career for 19 years, and must support the parents and their wife, and two children. In light of all circumstances, the defendant's disposition of this case is too harsh that the defendant made the disposition of this case, and thus, deviates from or abused discretion.

B. In the modern society where a motor vehicle becomes a public and universal means of transportation, the increase of traffic accidents and the harm and injury caused by drinking driving should be regulated, and the necessity of public interest should be emphasized. Thus, the revocation of a driving license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party subject to revocation, unlike the revocation of a general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). Thus, the general preventive aspect for establishing traffic order and social safety should be more considered than the disadvantage of the plaintiff subject to the disposition in this case.

The plaintiff's driver's license is individually essential.