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 November 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of the blood alcohol level of 0.115% on November 3, 2018, driven the B car from the street in front of the D University, where the Plaintiff is under the influence of alcohol level of 0.115%, to E in front of the same city of E (2km).”

B. On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on January 25, 2019.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a simple drinking driver, that it is essential to obtain a driver’s license in occupation, and that his family’s livelihood and reflect, the instant disposition constitutes 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 0.15% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, considering the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol, blood alcohol concentration, the Plaintiff’s re-driving even though it was discovered by drinking driving in 2009 (Evidence No. 8), and the revocation of driver’s license is possible to obtain a license again after a certain period of time, the Plaintiff’s effect of sanctions is limited.