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 June 28, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (B); (b) driven a freight vehicle for C at around 06:35 on September 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (c) left to the left at the ordinary village level from the shooting distance in front of the agricultural and fishery product market in front of the instant building during the game, and the police officer called out to the Plaintiff at around 07:03 when the alcohol level was measured to 0.051% from the time of the traffic accident; and (d) applied the blood alcohol concentration to the Plaintiff at around 00.03% from the time of the traffic accident by applying the official mark (i.e., 00., 08% x 28/600 x 40.5% alcohol level).

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff has a record of driving under the influence of alcohol of 0.084% on March 26, 2003, of 0.131% on July 28, 2004, of blood alcohol concentration of 0.127% on November 13, 2004, of 0.127% on blood alcohol concentration of 0.085% on July 28, 2007, of 0.107, of blood alcohol concentration of 0.107% on December 29, 2007.

C. Accordingly, on November 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving once again under influence of alcohol even though the Plaintiff had been on two or more occasions.

On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) there is a possibility of error in the respiratory measuring instrument, and there is a problem in the application of the Badmark formula, and there is no reason for the instant disposition. 2) Since the Plaintiff is an important means of maintaining the family’s livelihood without any reason for exclusion from mitigation to the Plaintiff, the revocation of the driver’s license and the disqualified period without mitigation to