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 July 17, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven B car while under the influence of alcohol of 05:10% of blood alcohol content on June 11, 2019, from the street upper corner of the D convenience store located in C at the time of Jinju to the studio without trade name in the same city E ( approximately 100 meters).”

B. On August 2, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on September 3, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes abuse of discretionary authority when considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not have a long-term driving or traffic accident history, the distance from the move to the drinking driving is short, and the driver’s license is required for commuting.

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 0.161% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, comprehensively taking account of the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol, blood alcohol concentration, and driver’s license revocation is able to obtain a license again after a certain period of time, and the effect of sanctions is limited to a limited period of time.