1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On June 14, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven B car under the influence of alcohol of 0.125% by blood alcohol concentration at around 23:30 on May 7, 2019, from the front side of the D Terminal located in Sacheon City C to the Ethm (20km) in the front of the Jinju City.”

B. On July 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on August 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power when considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s occupational driver’s license is essential, reflectiveness, and 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 serious 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 0.125% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, considering the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol, the blood alcohol concentration, the Plaintiff re-driving the vehicle despite the history of driving under the influence of alcohol (Evidence No. 8), and the revocation of a driver’s license is possible again after the lapse of a certain period, and thus, the effect of sanctions is limited.