The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 18, 2020, at around 20:40, the Plaintiff driven Cren Karen car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.109% on the front of the Gumi-si B apartment on the road (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On April 20, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II ordinary) as of April 30, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 7, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s short distance only driving and actively cooperate in the investigation of drinking alcohol driving, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to perform his/her duties while engaging in the distribution business, and the Plaintiff’s family members to support and economic difficulties, etc., the Plaintiff’s disadvantage that is infringed compared to the public interest protected by the instant disposition is significantly excessive, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a case where a person who obtained a driver’s license drives a motor vehicle, 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 a drunk driving and the suspicion of its result, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be more serious. The revocation of the driver’s license should be emphasized more than the general preventive aspect that should prevent the revocation rather than the disadvantage of the party who would have suffered due to the revocation, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do258, Feb.