1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On September 7, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol 0.201% on August 12, 2018, driven approximately KRW 500 meters on the street in front of the D Hospital located in the Gun, instead of 0.201% of alcohol level, from the street in front of the D Hospital located in the Gun to the front of the building.”

B. On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on October 30, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the instant disposition is a simple drinking driver who did not cause the Plaintiff’s alleged traffic accident, the fact that the driver’s license is essential, and his family’s livelihood, etc., the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power by harshly treating it

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 more 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 0.201% 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, the Plaintiff’s re-driving despite the history of driving under the influence of alcohol in around 2014 (Evidence No. 9), and the revocation of a driver’s license is able to obtain a license after a certain period of time, and thus, the effect of sanctions is limited to a limited period.