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 July 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition for the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while driving the B car to E apartment at the intersection in front of the D cafeteria located in C, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.138% of the blood alcohol concentration at the 0.138%, at the time of Jinju City, caused a traffic accident shocking the damaged vehicle that was directly driven by F kindergarten.”

B. On August 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not have traffic accidents and alcohol driving skills for 13 years after obtaining the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and that the instant disposition is an 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 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 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 0.138% 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, blood alcohol concentration, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of driver's license again after the lapse of a certain period.