1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) as of July 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a C rocketing car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.154% on the front of the Busan-gu Busan-gu building on the road (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 14, 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 August 31, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 25, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the employment of public officials and the maintenance of livelihood, and that the Plaintiff did not have any power to drive a drunkly, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was too harsh to have exceeded and abused discretion.

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, it is highly necessary for the 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. The Plaintiff's drinking level constitutes the criteria for revoking 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 0.154%, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition in this case is remarkably unreasonable, considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, public interest such as securing traffic safety to be achieved through the instant disposition will be suffered by the Plaintiff.