1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 1, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven B car under the influence of alcohol of 00:20% of blood alcohol concentration on January 11, 2019, from the street front of the Dgas charging station at the window C at the window of Changwon city to the front street of the same E apartment (12km).”

B. On February 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion as simple drinking driving, the fact that the driver’s license is essential, and the family’s livelihood and reflect, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretion.

B. (1) Determination is that the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today's frequent and severe results, and the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more severe than the case of general beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, 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 0.129% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, blood alcohol concentration, the Plaintiff re-driving the Plaintiff even after driving under the influence of 0.112% in 201 (Evidence B No. 8), and the revocation of the driver’s license is able to obtain a license after a certain period of time, and thus, the effect of sanction is limited to a period of time.