1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven B car under the influence of alcohol content of 05:50% on September 20, 2018, while driving the 0.126% of the blood alcohol content on the street in the Sungsi-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on December 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the instant disposition is a simple drinking driver who did not cause the Plaintiff’s allegation of traffic accident, that the blood alcohol concentration is relatively insignificant, and that the license as a Taekwondo field criminal is essential, it constitutes a deviation and abuse of discretionary authority.

B. (1) Determination is that the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today's frequent and severe results, and the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more serious than the case of general beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be more emphasized. The Plaintiff's driving 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, with the degree of the Plaintiff's driving level 0.126% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, the blood alcohol concentration, the Plaintiff’s re-driving despite the history of driving under the influence of alcohol in around 2015, and the revocation of the driver’s license can be again acquired after a certain period of time.