1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) as of January 17, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA IMB car while under the influence of 0.11% of blood alcohol level on the front of C in Changwon-gu, Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On January 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 February 14, 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 Plaintiff’s assertion was contacted by the Plaintiff that he was on a sudden basis, and was engaged in a drunk driving. The Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain his family’s livelihood by continuing to perform the affairs related to the registration as a certified judicial scrivener office. Article 91(1) [Attachment 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. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic regulations is increasing as the number of vehicles rapidly increase today and the number of driver's licenses is issued in large volume, and the number of traffic conditions is complicated, and when the driver's licenses are revoked on the grounds of traffic offenses such as drinking driving, etc., unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts, public interest should be emphasized, such as securing traffic safety to be achieved through the revocation rather than disadvantage to the party concerned due to the revocation, and the Plaintiff's drinking level reaches 0.11% of blood alcohol level, and it is difficult to deem that there was an inevitable circumstance where the Plaintiff is bound to drive under the influence of alcohol, and Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule

1. (f) Criteria for dispositions;