1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 9, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large scale) as of June 11, 2017 on May 19, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D-Wing-to-pured car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.11% on the front of the C-to-be located in Busan L/C (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On May 19, 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 August 8, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is necessary to maintain his family’s livelihood in order to continue collecting the waste vinyl, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion, considering the fact that the Plaintiff dices alcohol before the Plaintiff’s control over drinking, and was driving after having taken sufficient waters.

B. In today's judgment, since the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving occur frequently and the results are harsh, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and when the driver's license is revoked on the grounds of drinking driving on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, it is necessary to concentrate on public interest such as ensuring traffic safety to be achieved through the revocation rather than to the disadvantage of the party. 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. There are no special circumstances to deem the disposition of this case to be remarkably unreasonable. The Plaintiff was revoked on July 15, 200, on November 29, 2009.