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 October 12, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at around 03:38 on September 21, 2019, while driving B vehicles with approximately 500 meters of alcohol level 0.137% on the street near the Busan B apartment at the end of the same Gu (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On October 29, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on December 3, 2019, a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request was issued.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power when considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s substitute driving is allowed to move to a readily visible position, the fact that the license is essential due to the characteristics of the business, the driving distance is only 500 meters, and the use of a flat substitute driving.

B. (1) Determination is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today, and the results thereof are harsh, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the cancellation should be more emphasized.

(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s alcohol level is 0.137% of blood alcohol level, and the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (the blood alcohol level is 0.08% or more), the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident involving physical damage due to the instant drunk driving, and the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had to conduct a drunk driving do not seem to be observed.