1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) as of June 7, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D-to-pur motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.11% under the influence of alcohol at the front of the C store located in C, Dao-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 17, 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 September 12, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 11, Evidence No. 11, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the driver’s license is essential in order for the Plaintiff to continue his/her on-site traveling work, etc. as public officials E and his/her affiliated officials, the accident that occurred while driving under the influence of alcohol is a minor contact accident caused by the other party’s vehicle intrusion, and that the Plaintiff had no record of driving under the influence of alcohol in the past, etc., the instant disposition is deemed unlawful since it is too harsh to have exceeded and abused the discretionary authority.

B. In today’s determination, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are harsh, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be emphasized. The Plaintiff’s driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff’s driving level 0.11% of blood alcohol concentration, and there are no special circumstances to deem the instant disposition significantly unreasonable.