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 29, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition of a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.111% of the blood alcohol concentration on March 19, 2019, driven a B car on the street near the upper south-west-dong located in the Sungnam-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-si, Changwon-si, and then driven a D hospital located in C (a approximately 500 meters) on the street above the public parking lot.”

B. On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on May 21, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an abuse of discretionary authority when considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s occupational driver’s license is essential, that the Plaintiff has no record of drinking driving or traffic accidents, and that his family’s livelihood, etc.

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 a 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 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 0.11% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, taking into account the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol, blood alcohol concentration, and revocation of driver’s license is able to obtain a license again after a certain period of time, and the effect of sanctions is limited to a limited period, the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff.