A. The Plaintiff is a person who had a record of driving under the influence of alcohol on September 27, 2001 with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.078% and blood alcohol concentration of 0.091% on December 28, 2001.

B. On November 12, 2013, at around 20:10, the Plaintiff was found to have been found to have the blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% when he was driving Bexton vehicle on the road in front of our resources, and was found to have been measured at the site of the control at around 20:21.

C. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 and Class 2 ordinary motor vehicle driver’s license as of January 2, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was punished twice due to drinking driving, had the history of re-driving.

On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted revocation of the instant disposition to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

Considering the non-existence of the grounds for disposition and driving time, distance between the point of drinking alcohol measurement, the rise of blood alcohol concentration, the control status of the respiratory tester, error rate, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the actual blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving constituted 0.05% or more, and there is no ground for the disposition in this case.

B. Even if a deviation or abuse of discretionary power is recognized, the Plaintiff’s previous alcohol driving force and the instant drinking driving, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration is low, the instant drinking driving did not cause a traffic accident, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain the Plaintiff’s livelihood.