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

A. On June 22, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.132% on May 17, 2019 on blood alcohol level, driven B automobiles on the ground of the influence of alcohol level of 0.132% on the street of the Nam-gu Busan Frandong-dong, Busan, to the street in front of the exhibition hall located in the same Gu C.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On July 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on August 29, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power when considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s occupational driver’s license is essential, reflectiveness, and family’s livelihood.

B. (1) Determination is that the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today's frequent and severe results, and the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more severe than the case of general beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be more emphasized. The Plaintiff's driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff's driving level 0.132% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) Furthermore, in full view of the fact that the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, the Plaintiff is driving under the influence of alcohol even though it had the record of regulating the driving under the influence of alcohol, and the revocation of the driver’s license is possible to obtain a license again after the lapse of a certain period, and thus, the effect of the sanction is limited.