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 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while driving a dump truck at the 3-distance intersection, a hump truck under the influence of alcohol on October 18, 2017, at the 3-distance Dogro-ro, with a 0.109% alcohol concentration, brought an injury in need of two weeks’ treatment to the victim, due to shocking the part front of the left left-hand left-hand side of the running direction, while driving a dump truck at the 3-distance intersection at the 3-distance Dog-si, Yangsan-si.”

B. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on March 20, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 10, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion has no record of drinking alcohol for the last ten years, that the Plaintiff driven a small amount of alcoholic beverage in the caricature in relation to dementia nanotechnology because it had no record of drinking alcohol for the last ten years, that the blood alcohol content does not significantly exceed the revocation standard, that the degree of damage to the victim is not excessive, that the driving distance is relatively short distance, and that the family’s livelihood and family’s livelihood, 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 and the results are harsh, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more severe 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 emphasized. The degree of the Plaintiff's drinking level is 0.109% of blood alcohol concentration, and the criteria for revoking the driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.