1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) as of July 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B-hand car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.104% while under the influence of alcohol level on the roads near the Changwon-dong, Changwon-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 30, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is essential to maintain his/her family’s livelihood by performing his/her duties in the workplace and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level is relatively low to 0.104%, the instant disposition was unlawful since it abused and abused discretion.

B. In today’s determination, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are harsh, it is highly important to protect the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff’s drinking 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, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had an inevitable situation where the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive a drinking twice.