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

A. On August 21, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven the B vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 00:22 on August 6, 2019, from the Dju located in Sung-gu Sung-si, Seongbuk-si to the front distance of the Fhigh School E in Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 6, 2019, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on October 29, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that a driver's license is essential due to the fact that a driver's license is to work at work without a long-term accident, it constitutes abuse of discretionary power, and thus constitutes abuse of deviation from discretionary power.

B. (1) Determination is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today, and the results thereof are harsh, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the cancellation should be more emphasized.

(2) In this case, the degree of the Plaintiff’s drinking level is 0.169% of blood alcohol level, and the criteria for revocation of the driver’s license (not less than 0.08% of blood alcohol level) under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are far more higher than the criteria for revocation of the driver’s license, and the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, and the revocation of