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

A. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s license to drive a vehicle stated in the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on July 19, 2015, at around 20:34, the blood alcohol concentration of 0.114%.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on October 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 to 12 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) procedural defect Plaintiff failed to obtain a notification on the measurement of blood collection from a controlling police officer at the time when he/she was subject to the crackdown on drinking, and if he/she was notified of the measurement of blood collection, it would have been considered carefully, and thus, the instant disposition issued under a state of deprivation of an opportunity is procedural defect.

(2) A deviation from discretionary power and the abuse Plaintiff’s license as a delivery agent of strengthening and distributing the company is essential. In the course of personal rehabilitation, they support the old parents, their wife, and 1 South and North1 women. The instant disposition, which did not take into account the loss of a driver’s license due to the instant disposition, is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. (1) According to each of the evidence Nos. 6 and 8, determination as to the procedural defect assertion, the fact that the Plaintiff signed a report prepared at the time of drinking alcohol measurement with the indication that it does not wish to collect blood, and the fact that there is no objection related to the collection of blood even at the time of preparation of the protocol of interrogation of the police officer prepared against the Plaintiff, and the police officer did not inform the Plaintiff of the measurement of blood collection.