The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 12, 2020, at around 19:09, the Plaintiff driven D vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.082% in the front way of the C-ro located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan, with alcohol level of 0.082%.

B. On April 10, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol 0.082% of blood alcohol level.

C. On May 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on June 30, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 1-2, and 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) since the Plaintiff’s assertion obtained Class I ordinary driver’s license on February 12, 1991, it has no history of traffic accidents for about 29 years; (b) material damage caused by traffic accidents is minor; (c) when the driver’s license is revoked, it is difficult to maintain livelihood and support for family members; and (d) it is against the truth about drinking driving, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing the discretionary authority.

B. In light of the fact that a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is greater as the traffic situation is congested on the day, and the traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and there are many cases where the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly control driving to protect the majority of drivers and pedestrians, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver's license is more serious than the disadvantage suffered by the parties due to the revocation of the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.