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 September 25, 2014, at around 01:30 on September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff, while driving a Btoscar car on the road in front of the Busan trisadong Station in the state of drinking alcohol, was controlled, and the alcohol level was 0.070% as a result of the alcohol level measurement conducted at around 01:53 on the same day.

B. Meanwhile, on September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.103% after collecting and appraising blood at C Hospital around 02:05 on September 25, 2014.

C. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large, class 1 ordinary) as of December 1, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act based on the result of appraisal by blood gathering.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The difference between the blood alcohol concentration of 0.070% and 0.103% from the blood alcohol concentration of 0.03% from the time of measuring the non-existence of the grounds for disposition by the first respiratory test method. In light of the comparison between the blood alcohol concentration of 0.070% from the blood alcohol level measured by blood collection and the 0.103% from the blood alcohol level, each of the above blood alcohol measurement results cannot be trusted. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the blood sampling method is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff is running insurance business, and the Plaintiff is in need of a motor vehicle driver’s license. If the instant disposition is revoked, it is difficult for the Plaintiff’s family to maintain his/her livelihood. The Plaintiff’s substitute driver’s license became inevitably driven due to the Plaintiff’s failure to find the location of the vehicle on the day of this case, and the Plaintiff’s drinking driving in 209.