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

A. The Plaintiff is holding a first-class ordinary driver’s license and a second-class small driver’s license.

B. On June 9, 2016, the Defendant revoked each of the above driver’s licenses on the grounds that the Plaintiff driven approximately one meter after driving a DNA car while under the influence of alcohol 0.179% (measurement value) in front of C Burial located in Heposi B on May 24, 2016, around 02:0 on May 24, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the claim was dismissed on August 26, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff 1 was a driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the blood alcohol concentration reached 0.179% at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving.

3. On October 22, 2003, the Plaintiff was not subject to a disposition of suspension of license once due to a drunk driving, and there was no record of punishment for a drunk driving once more than 13 years prior to this case. On May 9, 2001, the Plaintiff was supported by two children of wife, 12 years of age, and 8 years of age.