1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, and Class 2) as of August 29, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA ball-type car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.153% on the front of the C convenience store located in Gohap-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 11, 2016, 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 September 20, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was forced to drive a vehicle to move the vehicle to the E in order to prevent interference with the passage of other vehicles entering the apartment at the entrance of the apartment without stopping the vehicle at the entrance of the apartment; (b) the distance of the drunk driving at the time is about 40 meters; (c) the Plaintiff’s parent is essential in order to look into the aged parents; (d) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary; and (e) the Plaintiff’s driving of the vehicle at drinking and the Plaintiff’s Class II driver’s license is not related to the Plaintiff’s driving

B. Determination 1) Today, since the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently and the results are harsh, it is highly necessary for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, general preventive measures should be more emphasized that should be prevented than the disadvantage of the parties caused by the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.