1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 20, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) as of May 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a B SP car under the influence of 0.14% of blood alcohol level on the front of Samsung Bio-resources located in Macheon-dong, Busan, Busan, on the roads of Samsungcheon-dong (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 22, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff could continue to perform his/her duties and maintain his/her livelihood in order to maintain his/her livelihood, including the fact that the driver’s license is essential and that the Plaintiff has no power to drive drinking.

B. In light of the fact that today's judgment today requires frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result thereof is harsh, and there is a great need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be more emphasized 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, with the degree of the Plaintiff's drinking alcohol concentration 0.14%, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition in this case is remarkably unreasonable, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the public interest of ensuring traffic safety to be achieved through the disposition in this case is the disposition