1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 19, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of June 13, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.115% on the front of the 45 Systren-ro, Go-ro 45 Syren-ro, Syren-ro, Go-ro, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the instant car (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 5, 2017, 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 31, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful as it deviatess from and abused discretion in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is essential to maintain his/her family’s livelihood, and that the Plaintiff has no record of driving alcohol.

B. In light of today’s determination of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today’s frequent and severe results, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike 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 more emphasized, the Plaintiff’s driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is clearly unreasonable, and the Plaintiff’s driving of this case is against other vehicles while driving under drinking, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the public interest is to ensure traffic safety to be achieved through the instant disposition.