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

On January 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 21, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition is unlawful since it deviatess from and abused discretionary power, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s argument that the Plaintiff was contacted with the Plaintiff that her young children were free, and was engaged in drinking; (b) the Plaintiff was in need of a driver’s license to engage in his livelihood activities; and (c) the Plaintiff did not have the power to drive drinking.

B. In today’s determination, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results thereof are harsh, it is highly important to protect the public interest from traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party caused by the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). Considering that the Plaintiff’s drinking level constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and that the instant disposition based on such criteria constitutes the criteria, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition is taken into account.