1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 18, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary) as of October 18, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B SP motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.125% on the road in front of the Nam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu Water-Si, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 12, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful since it deviatess from and abused discretion, in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had maintained his family’s livelihood by driving a ready-mixed vehicle. The revocation of a driver’s license would make it difficult for his family to maintain their livelihood, and the distance of the Plaintiff’s driving under the influence of alcohol is about 200 meters.

B. In light of the fact that today’s determination today requires frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and that the results are harsh, and thus, it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). The Plaintiff’s drinking level falls under 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 is no special circumstance to deem that the instant disposition based on such criteria is considerably unreasonable, and that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had inevitable circumstances, even considering the various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the public interest intended to achieve the instant disposition is larger than the disadvantage the Plaintiff would suffer from the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is deviating from and abused discretion.