1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary, class 2 ordinary) as of October 15, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 22, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D-to-pur motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.137% on the roads located in Jinju-si B, Jin-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 12, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is essential to maintain his/her family’s livelihood by continuing his/her business management, etc. in the workplace, and that the Plaintiff has no record of drinking driving.

B. In light of the fact that today's judgment today requires frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result thereof is harsh, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The Plaintiff's driving level constitutes the criteria for revoking 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 0.137% of blood alcohol level, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition in this case is remarkably unreasonable, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, public interest, such as securing traffic safety to be achieved through the instant disposition.