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 September 28, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation of a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a B car under the influence of alcohol with a 0.173% alcohol concentration on August 25, 2018, while under the influence of alcohol at around 01:58, 00%, up to approximately 300 meters in front of the Kim Mangn Station located in the outside of the city of Kimhae-si.”

B. On October 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on November 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 9, 10 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the instant disposition is a simple drinking driver who did not cause the Plaintiff’s assertion, the fact that the driver’s license is essential, the appearance of the elderly and the family’s livelihood, etc., the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

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 more 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 0.173% 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’s re-driving of alcohol despite the history of driving under the influence of alcohol on August 3, 2010 (Evidence B No. 8), and the revocation of the driver’s license can be again acquired after a certain period of time.