1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On March 16, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of April 25, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a blater under the influence of alcohol by 0.15% in front of the Masan driver’s license test site located on the vibration of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on April 3, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a blater’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 13, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made in a state where alcohol remains remaining in the drafting due to the Plaintiff’s failure to put the Plaintiff into place his/her place of determination, and was subject to one time alcohol measurement, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain his/her family’s livelihood by continuing his/her work as a motor vehicle dealer and maintaining his/her family’s livelihood, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. On March 16, 2017, when the Plaintiff was found to have a drunk driving on or around 22:27 on the same day, the Plaintiff measured the blood alcohol level at 0.15% as a result of the measurement conducted by a drinking measuring instrument at around 22:37 on the same day (as indicated in the evidence No. 5 and No. 6), and it is difficult to deem that there was any error in the method of measuring the drinking alcohol by the controlling police officer in the course of measuring the drinking alcohol level. Today, there is a lot of frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the results are harsh, so it is very important to prevent the traffic accident caused by drinking driving in public interest by strictly regulating the drinking driving. Unlike the case of the general beneficial administrative act, the revocation of a driver’s license should be emphasized more than the general preventive aspect that should prevent it rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would result.