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

A. On September 12, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the license of driving automobiles (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “Around 02:55, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.149%, while driving a Grand Sheet car under the influence of alcohol level: (a) on August 22, 2017; (b) on the part of the driver’s top while driving the road Kim Sea C on the right-hand surface from the yellow basin to the medianhead; and (c) caused a traffic accident that may occur due to a collision with the central separation unit at the center of the driver’s front seat.”

B. On November 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dissatisfied therewith, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on January 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, Nos. 1, 9, and the purpose of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the operator of an emergency rescue team, and only he was forced by his superior's act and did not have the intention of drinking, the driver's license is essential, there is no power of drinking driving, the basic recipient and the delayed disability, and family life, etc., the disposition of this case constitutes abuse of discretion.

B. In today’s judgment, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the result thereof is harsh, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the grounds of drinking driving should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be emphasized. The Plaintiff’s driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff’s driving level 0.149%

In addition, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration, the physical damage caused by drinking driving, and the drinking driving was inevitable.