1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. 처분의 경위 피고는 원고가 2016. 12. 18. 23:08경 통영시 광도면 죽림리 주영더팰리스4차 아파트 앞 도로에서 혈중알코올농도 0.184%의 술에 취한 상태로 B 쏘렌토 승용차를 운전하였다는 이유로 2017. 1. 4. 원고의 운전면허(제1종 보통)를 2017. 1. 31.자로 취소하는 처분(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라 한다)을 하였다.

On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to maintain the livelihood of his family members of the door-to-door sales business of clothing, the instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff abused and abused discretionary power.

B. In light of the following: (a) traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the result thereof is harsh; (b) the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving; (c) the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts; (d) 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; and (e) there are no special circumstances to deem that the instant disposition is significantly unreasonable, considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the public interest, which is to achieve through the instant disposition, is larger than the disadvantage the Plaintiff would suffer from the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is rendered.