1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of October 2, 2016, on September 9, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA passenger car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.115% on the front of C in Changwon-si, Changwon-si B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On September 23, 2016, 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 November 8, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's family's livelihood is essential to maintain his family's livelihood by continuously driving a drinking vehicle at the workplace, that the driver's license is not essential, that the plaintiff has no record of driving under the influence of alcohol, and that the plaintiff has attached Table 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road

1. F. In light of the fact that the instant disposition constitutes grounds for mitigation of the disposition standards prescribed under the above, it is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority.

B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic regulations is increasing as the number of vehicles rapidly increase today and the number of driver's licenses is issued in large volume, and the number of traffic conditions is complicated, and when the driver's licenses are revoked on the grounds of traffic offenses such as drinking driving, etc., unlike general beneficial administrative acts, public interest should be emphasized, such as securing traffic safety to be achieved through the revocation rather than disadvantages to the parties due to the revocation. The Plaintiff's drinking level reaches 0.115% of blood alcohol level, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was in an inevitable situation where the Plaintiff is bound to drive alcohol, and Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic

1. F. The grounds for mitigation of the disposition are that the defendant's discretion is reduced.