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 September 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 02:15% of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.191% on August 5, 2018, the Defendant driven B car 1/4 up to the right edge (50 meters) of the D Association’s North Busan Metropolitan City, Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on January 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 11, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not have the history of drinking driving or traffic accident, that is a simple drinking driver who does not cause an accident, and that the driver’s license is necessary for occupation, the instant disposition constitutes deviation and abuse of discretion.

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 0.191% 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, the blood alcohol concentration capable of monthlyizing the revocation level, and the revocation of a driver’s license can be again acquired after the lapse of a certain period, and thus, the effect of sanctions is a temporary period.