The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 9, 2020, the Defendant issued a revocation of driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven approximately 4 km in front of the restaurant at the top of the same city in the name of the cafeteria, while under the influence of 00:10% of blood alcohol level around March 20, 2020, the Plaintiff driven approximately 0.101% of the 0.10% of the blood alcohol level at the time of Kim Jong-ri’s death.”

B. On April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff appealed an administrative appeal to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on May 26, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary authority when considering the fact that the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff’s substitute driving but did not go on the part of the Plaintiff, leading to driving under the influence of alcohol, having not been damaged, having used the ordinary driving, and having the need for the driver’s license on duty.

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 this case, the degree of the Plaintiff’s drinking level is 0.101% of blood alcohol level, and the criteria for the revocation of the driver’s license (not less than 0.08% of blood alcohol level) under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the inevitable circumstances that the driver had to drive at the time do not peep, there was a history of being discovered twice due to drinking driving in 205 and 2013, and the revocation of the driver’s license expires for a certain period.