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 October 2, 2003, the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol at 0.052% in blood alcohol concentration, and around March 30, 2004, the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol at 0.164% in blood alcohol concentration.

B. On November 26, 2014, at around 22:30, the Plaintiff driven B vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with 0.052% of alcohol concentration, and was exposed to the police’s drinking control at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Cheongdamdong.

C. On December 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the license of a Class II ordinary vehicle driving pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (the date of revocation, December 20, 2014) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was a drunk driving on at least three occasions.

On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 8 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff dices alcohol with sons from around 20:30 to 21:30 on November 26, 2014, to 22:20 on the same day, and at around 22:20 on the same day, it was found that blood alcohol concentration was 0.052% or more of the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving since the blood alcohol concentration was likely to have been continuously increased at the time of driving and at the time of measuring, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was 0.5% or more. 2) In view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was inevitable in the course of performing his duties, the Plaintiff could not process frequent external work as the representative director of the company if the driver’s license was revoked, and the previous two previous two drinking alcohol levels were about 10 years prior to driving of alcohol, the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing discretion.

(b) Related Acts and subordinate statutes: To be recorded in Appendix;

C. Determination 1 has an interval between the point of time and the point of time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration, and at that time, appears to increase the blood alcohol concentration.