The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 12, 2020, the Plaintiff: (a) around 01:10, on the front of the Gumi-si B, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.186% in blood on the roads B before the Gumi-si (hereinafter “driving of alcohol”).

B. On September 2, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) as of September 22, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the Plaintiff’s instant drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 17, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff only driven a short distance from the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to the Plaintiff’s member, and the Plaintiff’s family members are suffering from economic difficulties, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing his discretion, because the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked is too heavy to the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would suffer.

B. 1) Determination 1) Where a person who has obtained a driver’s license drives a drinking, whether the driver’s license is revoked shall be deemed an administrative agency’s discretionary act. However, in light of the increase of traffic accidents caused by driving under drinking and the cruelness of the result, the necessity of public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by driving under drinking should be more emphasized. In the revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the revocation of a general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized to prevent the revocation rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2017Du67476, Feb. 28, 2018; 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012).