A. On December 1, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary driving license and a Class 1 ordinary driving license on July 29, 201.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) as of October 23, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DEX car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.112% on the front of the road located in Suwon-gu Busan, Busan, on September 22 and 15, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on January 6, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 11, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all the circumstances including the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was driving on the day of the instant case in order to find a place where it is easy for the Plaintiff to teach a substitute driver, the Plaintiff is in charge of the supply and business of the E company’s current business management department, and the Plaintiff is in need of the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff is supported by the Plaintiff’s family as a general beneficiary, but it is difficult for the Plaintiff to maintain his family’s livelihood if the driver’s license is revoked, and the Plaintiff has no record of regulating the Plaintiff’s drunk driving since the Plaintiff acquired the driver’s license.

B. In order to determine whether the revocation of a driver's license for a judged drinking driver deviatess from discretion and is illegal, the motive, degree of drinking, accidentless driving experience, distance after drinking, disadvantage to be suffered from the revocation of a driver's license shall be taken into account.

(See, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu9686, Sept. 29, 1995). As to the instant case, the health unit, the aforementioned evidence, and evidence Nos. 2 through 10, respectively.