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

On January 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 24, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was in violation of the disposition of this case, since the Plaintiff, as a general manager at the construction site at the construction site, was informed that there was an emergency at the construction site, and was forced to drive under the influence of alcohol, and the distance of drunk driving was approximately KRW 300 meters, and the Plaintiff’s work at the new wall that led to a Ulsan at the construction site at the construction site at the Kimhae-si, which is a residential area, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to perform duties, and the revocation of the driver’s license is highly likely to be dismissed at the workplace, and thus, it was unlawful.

B. In today’s judgment, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the result thereof is harsh, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the grounds of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative act, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party. The degree of the Plaintiff’s driving constitutes the criteria for revocation of the driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.