1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 and Class 2 small) as of May 17, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a rash car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.149% on the roads of Western Agricultural Cooperatives, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jinju-si, Jinju-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 23, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion continued to work in the workplace and the family’s livelihood needs to be maintained, the instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. In today’s determination, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are harsh, it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect should be more emphasized that should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party that would be incurred due to the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff’s degree falls under the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had any inevitable circumstance that the instant disposition based on the criteria is deemed significantly unreasonable, and that the Plaintiff had no choice but to do so with the disposition of revocation of a driver’s license for drinking driving in 207 and year 2008.