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 March 23, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of 0.129% of alcohol level on blood alcohol level on February 21, 2019, driven the B car on the street in front of a restaurant at the time of d apartment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 19, 2019, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on August 20, 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 abuse of discretionary authority when considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion-type and telephone-related disputes led to the instant case; (b) the fact that there is no damage; and (c) the Plaintiff’s frequent business trip requires a license.

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 drinking level is 0.129% of blood alcohol level, and the Plaintiff’s drinking level reaches the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol level) under [Attachment 28] of Article 91(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 123, Jun. 14, 2019), and the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not seem to have been observed, and the driver’s license was revoked due to a drunk driving in 2012.