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

On June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 31, 2017.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The disposition of this case is unlawful since it is too harsh that the plaintiff driven a about 10-meter distance to move or drive a vehicle, and the plaintiff is deemed to have a driving license in order to maintain his family's livelihood by continuing to perform his/her business duties in the workplace. In light of the fact that the plaintiff has no past history of drinking driving, etc., the disposition of this case is deemed to have exceeded and abused discretion.

B. In light of the following circumstances: (a) traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the result thereof is harsh; (b) the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving; (c) the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be more severe than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts; (d) the Plaintiff’s driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act; and (e) there are no special circumstances to deem the instant disposition to be remarkably unreasonable.