1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I common account) as of August 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a DNA IMB car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.11% in front of the gas station located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 17, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff allegedly worked in the business department of the bank and continued to conduct a business trip to attract deposits, etc. to maintain his family’s livelihood, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, and the Plaintiff was exemplary driving without a traffic accident after obtaining a driver’s license, etc., the instant disposition is deemed unlawful since it excessively harshly deviates from and abused discretion.

B. In today's judgment today, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are harsh, so it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and in revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving, unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving should be more serious than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The Plaintiff's drinking 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. There are no special circumstances to deem the disposition of this case to be remarkably unreasonable. The Plaintiff had the history of performing drinking driving in the past (0.77% of blood alcohol concentration on June 14, 2007).