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

A. On November 2, 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 0.144% of the blood alcohol level on October 5, 2019, around 05:10, at the front of the restaurant located in the Seongdong-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-gu, the Defendant driven approximately 10km in front of the same city in front of the restaurant.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on November 8, 2019, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on December 17, 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A. The Plaintiff’s substitute driving, which led to the instant drunk driving, was revoked due to the Plaintiff’s failure to communicate, and is driving.

Considering the fact that the instant disposition was discovered by a report after stopping, the fact that there was no damage, the fact that it was used for ordinary driving, and the fact that the professional license is essential, etc., it constitutes abuse of discretion.

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 the instant case, the Plaintiff’s drinking level is 0.14% of blood alcohol concentration, and the Plaintiff’s drinking level is much higher than the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the Plaintiff had the record of suspending the license due to drinking driving in 2017.