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 19, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.151% (the result of blood extraction) on the front of the 99 Southern Elementary School in Jini-si, Jini-ro, Jini-ro, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level of 0.15% (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

On August 16, 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】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion continues to serve as a management position in the construction site and supports the family, the driver’s license is essential and that the Plaintiff measured the blood alcohol level at 0.1% in the pulmonary measuring instruments, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretion.

B. In today's judgment, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are harsh, it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving should be more severe than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The Plaintiff's drinking 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. There are no special circumstances to see that the disposition of this case is clearly unreasonable. The Plaintiff has two-time alcohol concentration 0.091% on September 1, 2001, and 0.148% on June 29, 2005.