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 February 23, 2018, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driving license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol at the front of the Henuridong, Busan Young-do, Busan, on February 13, 2018, on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol at the influence of 0.149% of the blood alcohol concentration.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on April 24, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff obstructed traffic flow at the time of the instant case or did not cause traffic accidents, the Plaintiff’s model driving except for minor violations of laws and regulations for about 19 years after the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license, the Plaintiff made the best efforts to avoid the ordinary drunk driving, the Plaintiff’s active cooperation in the investigation, the Plaintiff’s occupational license is necessary, and the Plaintiff actively performed volunteer activities by means of ordinary blood donation, etc., are unlawful since the instant disposition was against the Plaintiff’s discretionary power by excessively harshly harshly harsh to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the situation where a motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation and accordingly, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of the consequences thereof, etc., the necessity of public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be more emphasized. In the revocation of a driver's license, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to be suffered due to the revocation should be emphasized.