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 15, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a B car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.111% at a 0.50% alcohol level around February 22, 2019, to E in front of the same Dong (50m) on the street near the D business office located in C at the time of displaying B car.”

B. On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on April 23, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged occupation requires a driver’s license, that there was no long-term drinking driving force, that is a simple drinking driving who does not cause an accident, and that the driving distance is a short distance, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary authority.

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, in full view of the fact that the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, blood alcohol concentration, and revocation of a driver’s license is able to obtain a license again after a certain period of time, the effect of sanctions is limited to a limited period.