1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) as of August 12, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on July 13, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B QM5 automobiles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.125% on the front of a public parking lot in the Dong-dong-dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 18, 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 26, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the vehicle parked in a public parking lot in the same future to meet with a substitute driver and driving a vehicle more than 2-3 meters away from and abused the discretion of the Plaintiff, on the ground that the instant disposition is unlawful since it is too harsh, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff, while serving in the Gyeongnam Branch of the Korea taxi Financial Cooperative, has been driving a vehicle at the public parking lot at the entrance of the public parking lot; and (b) the Plaintiff is able to maintain his family’s livelihood by continuing to perform C affairs; and (c) the Plaintiff has no past history of drinking driving.

B. In today's judgment today, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the result thereof is harsh, so it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of 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 degree of the Plaintiff's driving constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.