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 January 12, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 05:05 on December 23, 2017, driven a B car with approximately KRW 500 meters at the street near CD located in the city of Jinju to the square of 10 meters at the same time.”

B. On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6 (including a tentative number), the purpose of all pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a social welfare worker at the Elderly Welfare Center that provides a home-to-house visit service. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is essential to drive, traffic accidents and drinking driving skills for 14 years after obtaining a driver’s license in 2004, and the fact that the Plaintiff is a simple drinking driver who does not cause any damage, family life, and reflect, the instant disposition constitutes 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 0.153% 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, and the revocation of the driver’s license.