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 July 11, 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 of 00:26 on June 22, 2018, driven the B car at a level of 0.123% of alcohol content in the blood alcohol level, from the front of the restaurant located in the downstream-dong, to the front of the D On the same city located in the same city at the time of Jinju-dong (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On July 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on August 21, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes abuse of discretionary authority when considering the fact that the Plaintiff has no history of drinking or traffic accident for 28 years, the Plaintiff is a simple drinking driver who has not caused an accident, the fact that the driver’s license is essential, and 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 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 0.123% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, blood alcohol concentration, driving distance, and revocation of driver's license are able to obtain a license again after a certain period of time. Therefore, the effect of sanctions is limited to a limited period of time.