1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 15, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I common account) as of August 30, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B-hand motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.1% at the front of the Employment Welfare Center in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 24, 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 of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful since it deviatess from and abused discretion, considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had been working in the home company and continued to perform his duties, the driver’s license is essential and the Plaintiff has no record of drinking driving.

B. In today’s determination, since the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently caused and the result thereof is harsh, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be more severe than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The degree of the Plaintiff’s drinking 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, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is remarkably unreasonable (Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act).

1. (f) Even if it is deemed that it constitutes grounds for mitigation of the disposition standards, the plaintiff is more than 110 points for disposition in accordance with mitigation of the disposition standards.