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 February 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven B cargo under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.143% on December 11, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.143%, resulting in a traffic accident leading to a subsequent back to the left-hand side of C dump truck, which is going on the front side at the sump truck located at the sump truck located at the sump truck located at the river where the sump truck is located at the sump truck located at

B. On February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 8 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the driver is engaged in the cargo transport business as a driver, and thus the driver's license is essential, there is no record of drinking driving, family life and reflect, etc., the disposition of this case constitutes abuse of discretion.

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 a 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 emphasized. The Plaintiff's driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of a 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 0.143% 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, the blood alcohol concentration is relatively high, rather than simple drinking, causes traffic accidents, and the revocation of the driver’s license.