1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) as of April 13, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a CNA car under the influence of 0.105% of blood alcohol level on the front of the building in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B Building on March 16, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of 0.105% of blood alcohol level (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 14, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is necessary for the Plaintiff to maintain his family’s livelihood by operating the enterprise, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, the Plaintiff’s physically disabled class 5, and there was no record of revocation or suspension of the driver’s license due to drinking driving, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it abused

B. In today’s determination, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are harsh, it is highly important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, general preventive measures should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff’s drinking level falls under the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there is no special reason to deem the instant disposition based on such criteria that the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive alcohol.