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 1, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.134% of blood alcohol level on September 10, 2019, driven approximately 6km in front of the F apartment located in the same city E on the street in front of the D cafeteria located in Kimhae-si C.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on October 22, 2019, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on December 10, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority in light of the fact that the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff’s substitute driving, but the Plaintiff was refused to drive, the fact that there was no damage, the use of ordinary driving, and the fact that the driver’s license is essential.

B. (1) Determination is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today, and the results thereof are harsh, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the cancellation should be more emphasized.

(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s alcohol level is 0.134% of blood alcohol level, and the criteria for revocation of the driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (the blood alcohol level is 0.08% or more), the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, there was a history discovered by the driving under the influence of alcohol in 2008, and the revocation of the driver’s license expires for a certain period.