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 March 31, 200, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary car driving license (B) on June 28, 2010, and Class 1 ordinary car driving license (B) on January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff was found to have been driven by the police who was reported to drive approximately 30 meters in front of the E convenience store in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while under the influence of alcohol at around 23:25 on January 19, 2016.

B. On June 3, 2002, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff, while driving a blood alcohol level of 0.158% on April 17, 2008 and driving a blood alcohol level of 0.146% on at least two occasions, he/she had been in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least three occasions.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on March 3, 2016, but was dismissed on April 5, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Description of Evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged police officer’s measure of drinking alcohol to the Plaintiff at the time without having the Plaintiff engage in a direction-setting and measuring so that the Plaintiff’s measure of drinking alcohol can not be ensured accuracy and objectivity, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 6, 11, and 12, the police officers at the time, after voluntarily driving with the Plaintiff and the Hawon Police box, conducted a alcohol measurement after having the Plaintiff be drafted to put the Plaintiff into his place of business, and measured at 0.146% of the blood alcohol level as a result of the alcohol measurement, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not request the Plaintiff to collect blood. Thus, the procedure was unlawful, such as where the Plaintiff did not put the Plaintiff into place his place of business at the time of the alcohol measurement at the time of the alcohol measurement.

We cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned numerical values of drinking alcohol cannot guarantee the accuracy and objectivity of drinking alcohol measurement.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.