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 December 14, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the license of driving automobiles (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven approximately 30 km from the front side of the restaurant located in the city of Kimhae-si to the GT Nom in the city of Changwon-si, Changwon-dong, while under the influence of 00:23% of blood alcohol content on November 15, 2017.”

B. On January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on March 20, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an abuse of discretion when considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not have drinking power for eight years after obtaining a driver’s license, that the Plaintiff is in need of driving since it carries out the duty of supplying construction materials, reflectivity, family life, etc.

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 0.131% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, taking into account the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration, the driving distance, and the inevitable circumstances under which the driving of alcohol was inevitable, etc., the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality and discretion.