1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common account) as of August 5, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA-to-be motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.184% on the roads of Criju station located in Criju City B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 26, 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 September 5, 2017.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the driver’s license is essential to support the Plaintiff’s family and that the Plaintiff has no record of driving alcohol, the instant disposition was unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. In light of the fact that today's judgment today's traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur 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 is more severe than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, 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 emphasized. 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, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is remarkably unreasonable. Thus, considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the public interest, such as securing traffic safety to be achieved through the instant disposition, is less vulnerable than the disadvantage the Plaintiff may suffer from the disposition of this case.