1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, and class 2) as of May 9, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.11% in front of the 127 119 Safety Center (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 5, 2017.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In order for the Plaintiff to continuously maintain his family's livelihood, driver's license is essential, and Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

1. F. In light of the fact that the instant disposition constitutes grounds for mitigation of the disposition standards prescribed under the above, it is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority.

B. In today's determination, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the result thereof is harsh, it is very important to protect the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, unlike general beneficial administrative acts, in the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than disadvantage to the party due to the revocation should be more emphasized, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the degree of driving by the plaintiff 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, and there are no special circumstances to deem the disposition of this case to be remarkably unreasonable. Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

1. (f) Whether the criteria for disposition are mitigated or not;