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 August 4, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 00:15% of the blood alcohol concentration on July 9, 2018, driven a B car on the street in the south-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Arts Site to approximately 200 meters in front of the same Gu E market.”

B. On August 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power when considering the fact that the Plaintiff has no traffic accident and no history of drinking driving for ten years after obtaining a driver’s license, that is a simple drinking driver who has not caused damage, that the driver’s license is essential in the occupation, and that his family’s livelihood.

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 0.145% 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.