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 August 4, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol on July 12, 2018, driven approximately 30 meters on the street in the roof-dong, Gapo-dong, Mapo-dong, Mapo-dong” on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a freight B while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.10% on blood on July 12, 2018.

B. On August 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a simple drinking driver who does not cause a traffic accident, the blood alcohol content meets the revocation standard with 0.1%, the driver’s license is essential in occupation, the family’s livelihood, etc., the instant disposition constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

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 ordinary beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of ordinary 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 0.10% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep. The effect of sanctions is that the Plaintiff re-driving a motor vehicle with the history of driving under the influence of alcohol without a license in 2003, and the revocation of a driver's license is possible once a certain period expires.