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

On March 14, 2016, 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 request for administrative appeal on May 10, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has supported his/her family by driving a Leper, and the instant disposition in light of the fact that the driver’s license is essential to maintain his/her family’s livelihood, etc. is unlawful since it deviates from and abused the discretionary authority.

B. In light of the fact that traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the results are harsh, etc., it is highly necessary for public interest to prevent 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 cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, it is necessary to emphasize the general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party that would have suffered from the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). Considering that the Plaintiff’s drinking level constitutes the criteria for revoking a 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 falls under the inevitable circumstances where the Plaintiff had no choice but to deem it unreasonable.