1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 2 ordinary) as of October 10, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 18, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a Category B motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.137% at the front of the Changwon Citizens’ Association, which is located in the window dong of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

On October 10, 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 December 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. The instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretionary authority in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is essential to maintain his/her family’s livelihood by continuing a business trip, etc. at work.

B. In light of the following: (a) traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the results of the accident are harsh; (b) the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving by drinking; and (c) the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative acts; (d) the Plaintiff’s drinking 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 drinking level 0.137% higher than the disadvantage of the party concerned; and (e) there are no special circumstances to deem the instant disposition significantly unreasonable; (b) the Plaintiff’s history of blood alcohol level on August 2, 1998 (0.06%, and 0.10.104% of blood alcohol level on June 20, 200).