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 8, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, at around 20:25, driven a B car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.138% on the blood alcohol level at around August 22, 2018, from the front street to the front street of the same city at the time of smuggling.”

B. On October 1, 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 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an abuse of discretionary authority in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s occupational driver’s license is essential, that is a drunk driver who did not cause an accident, and that his family’s livelihood, etc.

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 0.138% 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, the Plaintiff’s re-driving despite the history of driving under the influence of alcohol on several occasions, thereby causing a high social risk (Article 8). The revocation of a driver’s license is able to obtain a license again after a certain period of time.