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 November 29, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition for a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a B car while under the influence of alcohol of 01:10% of blood alcohol content on October 30, 2018, at the same time as the Plaintiff driven a car to the street ( approximately five km) near the upper East East-dong intersection (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On December 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on January 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary authority when considering the Plaintiff’s alleged drinking driving or the fact that there was no history of traffic accident, the mere drinking driving without causing any damage, the fact that a license as a real estate intermediary is essential, the family’s livelihood, etc.

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 0.152% 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, and the revocation of driver’s license are able to obtain a license again after a certain period of time, and the effect of sanctions is limited to a limited period.