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 3, 2017, at around 15:00, the Plaintiff driven a two-wheeled vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05% on the front side of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”) and caused a traffic accident (personal damage: one light light; hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

B. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on the ground of the instant traffic accident (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on December 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The police officer who investigated the blood alcohol level of the instant drinking driving without any grounds for disposition stated to the effect that the Plaintiff would take safeguard measures upon measuring the blood alcohol level of 0.045% as a result of the Plaintiff’s respiratory measurement. The Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity for blood collection measurement due to the above police officer’s breath notification. As such, the Plaintiff cannot recognize the probative value of the result of the breath measurement (0.045%) of the blood alcohol level measurement (0.05%). Nevertheless, the instant disposition was made by deeming the probative value of the depositee calculated by applying the breathic formula as the blood alcohol level at the time of the Plaintiff’s breathic driving. 2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary due to the abuse of discretionary power, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power.

B. 1) Determination is based on the relevant legal doctrine regarding the non-existence of grounds for disposition.