1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary) as of September 16, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 30, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.132% while under the influence of alcohol on the front of the Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-dong Changwon-dong Changwon-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-gu, and on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle with a b

On September 5, 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 October 17, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is essential to maintain his family’s livelihood by continuing to perform his/her duties, such as automobile maintenance, etc. in the workplace.

B. In light of the fact that today's determination today requires frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the result thereof is harsh, so it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and 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 the case of ordinary beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party. The Plaintiff's drinking level constitutes the criteria for revoking 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 0.132% of blood alcohol level, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition in this case is remarkably unreasonable, the Plaintiff's past history of driving under drinking (072% of November 8, 2014) is to be achieved through the instant disposition even considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff.