1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a B car under the influence of alcohol of 0.145% of blood alcohol concentration on April 16, 2018, in the state of 0.145%, from the public parking lot located in the Cheong-dong, Chungcheongnam-si, Cheongdo-si, Kimhae-si, with approximately KRW 500 meters in front of the same Tridong street located in the same city.”

B. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Reasons for 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 constitutes abuse of discretionary power by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff did not have the history of drinking or traffic accidents after obtaining a driver’s license; (b) is a simple drinking driver; (c) is in need of a driver’s license in occupation; and (d) family life and reflectivity.

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 severe 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 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 0.145% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, the degree of blood alcohol concentration, and the revocation of driver's license is subject to sanctions, since they can obtain a license again after the lapse of a certain period.