1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On the ground that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of 0.1% alcohol level on June 23, 2014, the fact that the Defendant revoked the license of driving on July 29, 2014 that the Plaintiff rendered a disposition to revoke the license of driving on the Plaintiff on July 29, 2014 does not conflict between the parties, or that it is recognized as entry in Eul evidence 1

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as a person working in the crowdfunding, her friend and drinking on the day of the instant case and her mother was forced to drive by proxy on the day of the instant case. However, even after the lapse of 20 to 30 minutes, the Plaintiff was urged to contact with the World Cup that it is difficult for her friend to get off, and became driving because her drinking volume was low.

B. The Plaintiff is the first drinking driver, and the degree of dependence on his duties is high, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot perform his duties properly due to the instant disposition, and eventually, the Plaintiff is bound to have only work, and her mother’s treatment is also difficult, and this is absolute difficulty in living.

Considering these circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from the scope of discretion.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) The revocation of a driver's license for driving under drinking belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency;

Even if a motor vehicle is a public means of transportation today, in light of the situation where a large volume of driver's license is issued, frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the results are harsh, it is very necessary to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving.

Therefore, the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving should be focused on the public interest aspect that should prevent the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the revocation of general beneficial administrative act.

B. The Plaintiff’s various circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s statement as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.