The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 22, 2020, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a B vehicle under the influence of alcohol of about 0.085% at around 20:0 on November 26, 2019, while driving around 0.085% of blood alcohol level on the street in front of the Hadong-dong, Hadong-dong, Hanam-dong, to approximately 2 km on the street in front of the same face.”

B. On April 27, 2020, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on June 23, 2020.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 13 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty D had a drunk driving with the awareness of theft risk of tools, etc., selling the instant vehicle to the instant medical care center, and supporting the father located in the medical care center, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretion.

B. (1) Determination is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today, and the results thereof are harsh, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the cancellation should be more emphasized.

(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s drinking level is 0.085% of blood alcohol level, and the criteria for revocation of the driver’s license (not less than 0.08% of blood alcohol level) under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are met. In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s drinking level is higher than the criteria for revocation of the driver’s license; (b) there was a history discovered by drinking driving several times; and (c) the revocation of the driver’s license is possible once